Oil-Dri Corporation of America v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company
Oil-Dri Corporation of America |
Nestle Purina Petcare Company |
1:2015cv01067 |
February 3, 2015 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
Chicago Office |
Cook |
John W. Darrah |
Patent |
35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 754 MOTION by Defendant Nestle Purina Petcare Company for judgment Rule 50(A) as a Matter of Law [CORRECTED] (Abernathy, Michael) |
Filing 680 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (regarding certain motions in limine and Daubert motions) signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 3/8/2019. (mk) |
Filing 647 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 2/22/2019: The Court grants in part and denies in part both Oil-Dri's and Nestle Purina's motions for summary judgment [600, 621], as follows. The Court denies bot h sides' motions for summary judgment on the question of literal infringement of claim 1 of the patent in suit, except as to the Maricopa products, on which the Court grants Nestle Purina's cross-motion. The Court also denies both parties 039; motions for summary judgment on Nestle Purina's prior art defenses. The Court grants Oil-Dri's motion for summary judgment on Nestle Purina's written description and equitable estoppel defenses. Finally, the Court denies Oil-Dri's motion for summary judgment of literal infringement of claim 30 and grants Nestle Purina's cross-motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of that claim. (mk) (Kennelly, Matthew) |
Filing 619 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND FINAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANT'S WITNESS WALTER CLARK, signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 12/21/2018: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Order, the Court denies plaintiff's motion to amend its final infringement contentions and grants plaintiff's motion to exclude defendant's witness Walter Clark. (mk) |
Filing 560 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/15/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) |
Filing 533 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 9/5/2018: The disputed claim terms are construed in accordance with the conclusions set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court sets a status hearing for September 13, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. and will set at that time a schedule for all remaining proceedings. (mk) |
Filing 506 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/26/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) |
Filing 503 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 6/9/2018: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court denies plaintiff's motion to exclude certain prior art defenses [dkt. 198] but directs defendant to serve a revised set of invalidity and unenforceability contentions consistent with this order by no later than July 3, 2018. (mk) |
Filing 323 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 2/26/2018:Mailed notice(kef, ) |
Filing 140 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: The Court grants in part and denies in part Oil-Dri's motion to exclude, by Inter Partes Review estoppel, certain invalidity contentions 114 . See Memorandum Opinion and Order for further details. Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 8/2/2017. Mailed notice(ep, ) |
Filing 105 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 3/31/2017:Mailed notice(kef, ) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.