Nucap Industries Inc. et al v. ROBERT BOSCH LLC et al
| Nucap Industries Inc. and Nucap US Inc. |
| ROBERT BOSCH LLC and Bosch Brake Components LLC |
| 1:2015cv02207 |
| March 12, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| XX Outside US |
| Joan B. Gottschall |
| Copyrights |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
1203
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 9/7/2019: For the reasons stated in the Opinion, Bosch's motion 1114 for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted against Nucap's DMCA claim, unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims (as far as those relate to Bosch's alleged trade-mark misappropriation and copyright infringement), and trade-secret misappropriation claim for disclosure to third parties. Nucap is al so barred from arguing at trial that Bosch waived its rights under the POTCs; that the terms of the POTCs are excluded under the CISG for being too surprising or unusual; or that Wilkes had authority to enter into any agreement on behalf of Bosch. Th e motion is otherwise denied. That means the following claims advanced by Nucap remain for the jury to decide: trade secret misappropriation (for internal use and disclosure), copyright infringement, and tortious interference. The jury will also dete rmine whether the POTCs govern the parties' relationship. Nucap's motion 1158 for summary judgment is granted against Bosch's counter-claims for unjust enrichment and implied in-fact contract, but denied as to all other counter-claim s. So the jury will decide Bosch's counter-claims for breach of contract, ICFA, and tortious interference with business expectancy. In light of this Opinion, the parties shall reinitiate settlement negotiations and will report on them at the nex t status hearing. In advance of the status hearing, the parties may ask for a settlement referral to the magistrate judge. If the negotiations fail and no referral is sought, then both sides shall be prepared to set the trial schedule at the next status hearing. Emailed notice(eec)
|
|
Filing
993
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Young B. Kim on 12/7/2017. (ma,)
|
|
Filing
888
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Young B. Kim on 8/23/2017. (ma,)
|
|
Filing
883
ENTER MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: The court concludes Bosch GmbH has consented to this court's exercising personal jurisdiction over it to adjudicate the claims Nucap pleads against it in the FAC. Bosch GmbH's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (ECF No. 735 ) is denied. By its terms, the magistrate judge's partial stay of discovery lasts only until the court rules on that motion. (See Minute Entry, May 25, 2017, ECF No. 741 .) Now that the court has ruled, Bosch GmbH's objection to the magistrate judge's order partially staying discovery (ECF Nos. 750 , 759 ) is overruled as moot. Signed by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 8/18/2017. Mailed notice(mjc, )
|
|
Filing
713
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 3/31/2017. Mailed notice(mjc, )
|
|
Filing
630
MEMORANDUM ORDER Signed by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 10/19/2016.Mailed notice(mjc, )
|
|
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 7/1/2015. Mailed notice(mjc, )
|
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.
