Peerless Industries, Inc. v. Crimson AV, LLC
Plaintiff: Peerless Industries, Inc.
Defendant: Crimson AV, LLC and Vladimir Gleyzer
Case Number: 1:2011cv01768
Filed: March 14, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office: Chicago Office
County: Du Page
Presiding Judge: Joan H. Lefkow
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
November 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 797 OPINION and ORDER. Crimson has not met its burden to prove inequitable conduct, even applying the original factfinding standard of Rule 52 instead of the deferential standard of Rule 50 that Crimson requested. The court holds that Crimson did not pr ove that the '850 patent is unenforceable. Motion 758 is denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Peerless and against Crimson. This case is terminated. Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 11/27/2018. Mailed notice (ags, )
May 23, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 758 MOTION by Defendant Crimson AV, LLC for judgment Renewed Rule 50 Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P)(Ryndak, Peter)
March 31, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 672 Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 3/31/2017: Plaintiff's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law 623 is granted with respect as to obviousness and best mode and denied as to anticipation, and its motion for a new trial is denied. The court denies without prejudice plaintiff's request for a new trial to determine damages. The case will be called for status on April 18, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Before that time counsel shall meet to discuss how to bring this case to conclusion as soon as practicable, including the need for a trial on damages and the possibility of settlement.Mailed notice(mad, )
June 23, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 608 MOTION by Defendants Crimson AV, LLC, Vladimir Gleyzer for judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 (Marconi, Joseph)
March 17, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 483 OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 3/17/2015. defendant's motion for summary judgment of invalidity or, in the alternative, unenforceability of the '850 patent (dkt. 409) is denied. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Counts II and III of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (dkt. 426) is granted as to Count II and denied as to Count III. Peerless's motion to strike Gleyzer's expert testimony (dkt. 448) is denied as moot. As s tated, the court has denied Crimson's motion for summary judgment on its invalidity defenses as well as Peerless's trade secrets claim. Because Peerless did not respond with a counter-motion for summary judgment in its favor on these is sues,11 the question remains whether Crimson's evidence is sufficient to go to the jury on any of the claims, particularly considering the high burden of proof resting on Crimson's invalidity defenses. The parties 11 Peerless may have believed the court would not entertain such a motion in light of its earlier ruling that Peerless does not need to prove its patent valid. Although similar in concept, a motion for summary judgment on the invalidity defenses would have been use ful, though not necessary. 28 should discuss this issue before the status hearing and should consider whether a settlement conference or mediation would be a better alternative for bringing this case to a close. [For further details see Opinion and Order.] Mailed notice(cdh, )
July 14, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 457 Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 7/14/2014: Defendants' objections (dkts. 402, 399) to Magistrate Judge Susan Cox's Reports and Recommendations of February 27, 2014 (dkt. 395) and March 13, 2014 (dkt. 398) on the parties' motions for sanctions (dkts. 321, 381) are overruled in part and sustained in part. The court adopts the March 13, 2014 R&R in whole with the addition that defendants shall pay Peerless its reasonable expenses and attorney's fees associated with its motion for sanctions (dkt. 321) and reply brief (dkt. 361), and its response to Crimson's objections to the March 13 R&R (dkt. 408). The court adopts the February 27, 2014 R&R in part but orders Peerless to pay defendants 9; reasonable expenses and attorney's fees associated with their November 22, 2013 motion to compel (dkt. 370), their December 3, 2013 appearance before the magistrate judge on that motion (dkt. 377), their motion for sanctions (dkt. 381) and re ply brief (dkt. 392), their January 24, 2014 appearance before the magistrate judge on that motion (dkt. 387), and their objections (dkt. 399) and reply brief (dkt. 405) to the February 27 R&R. The parties are directed to work together as set out in Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 54.3(d) to endeavor to resolve the expenses and fees. Mailed notice(mad, )
November 27, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 376 Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 11/27/2013: Defendants' motion for reconsideration 349 is denied.Mailed notice(mad, )
November 14, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 364 Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 11/14/2013: defendants' objections 257 are overruled and Judge Cox's ruling of May 14, 2013 237 is adopted. Defendants are to return the memorandum to Peerless without delay.Mailed notice(mad, )
October 1, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 330 Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 10/1/2013: Crimson's motion for summary judgment of nonfringement 134 is denied. Peerless's motion for summary judgment is granted as to infringement 170 and is moot as to validity. A separate order will issue regarding the outstanding invalidity contentions. A status hearing is set for October 8, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.Mailed notice(mad, )
May 14, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 237 WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 5/14/13: Defendants have filed a motion for an in-camera inspection of a particular document inadvertently produced by plaintiff [dkts. 230, 231]. Defendants seek a ruling that this document is discoverable, and not to be returned to plaintiff, because of the crime-fraud exception. We deny that request and find plaintiff's inadvertent disclosure did not waive the attorney-client privilege. (For further detail see minute order). Mailed notice (vkd, )
May 8, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 235 WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 5/8/13:Defendants Crimson AV, LLC and Vladimire Gleyzer raises two related matters in its Motion for Sanctions [dkt. 212] and its Supplement to Motion for Sanctions [dkt. 215]. The first motio n for sanctions is based on the allegedly improper instructions given by plaintiff Peerless Industries, Inc. ("Peerless") to its designated Rule 30(b)(6) witness Nicholas Belacore. The second, supplement to its motion for sanctions, is base d on Peerless' failure to produce certain documents relating to Peerless' trade secrets claim until after Mr. Belacore's deposition. For the reasons stated below, both motions are granted in part. We agree that Peerless improperly inst ructed its witness not to answer questions relating to its trade secrets claims and should have produced the documents relating to that claim prior to that deposition. The court's remedy for both discovery violations is the same: reconvene Mr. Belacore's deposition at Peerless' expense so that questions concerning Peerless' claims for trade secrets violations can be answered. (For further detail see minute order). Mailed notice(vkd, )
March 22, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 181 Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 3/22/2013:Mailed notice(mad, )
January 8, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 132 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 1/8/13: (vkd, )
August 24, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 110 WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 8/24/2012: Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings [#73] is granted. Counts IV and VII of the third amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants' request for costs and attorney's fees is denied. Status hearing is set for 11/27/2012 at 8:30 a.m. See statement below.Mailed notice(mad, )
June 27, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 100 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 6/27/12: (vkd, )
June 10, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 52 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 6/10/2011:Mailed notice(wp, )
June 9, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 49 MOTION by Defendants Crimson AV, LLC, Vladimir Gleyzer for judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.50 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Pioli, Victor)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Peerless Industries, Inc. v. Crimson AV, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Peerless Industries, Inc.
Represented By: James Daniel Dasso
Represented By: Jonathan William Garlough
Represented By: Gregory S. Norrod
Represented By: Aaron J. Weinzierl
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Crimson AV, LLC
Represented By: Jacques M. Dulin
Represented By: Christopher W Loweth
Represented By: Joseph R. Marconi
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Vladimir Gleyzer
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?