Gemshares LLC v. Lipton et al
| Gemshares LLC |
| Arthur Joseph Lipton and Secured Worldwide, LLC |
| 1:2017cv06221 |
| August 28, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Matthew F. Kennelly |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
| 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
336
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 1/2/2020: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and Order, plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal 309 is granted; plaintiff's mo tion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 306 is denied without prejudice; and plaintiff's motion for enforcement of fee-shifting provision and obligation to assign creations 297 is granted in part and denied in part as stated in this order. By no later than 1/6/2020, plaintiff is to take appropriate steps to dismiss its remaining claims as it has represented and is to make a filing that includes appropriate language for entry of judgment against Lipton and for the allowed modification to the injunction order. (mk)
|
|
Filing
257
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 7/21/2019: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court grants the plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction and for assignmen t of defendant Lipton's interest in the specified patent application [dkt. no. 193]. At tomorrow's status hearing, the Court will further discuss with counsel the preparation and submission of an appropriate form of the injunction and an order for the assignment of defendant Lipton's interest in the patent application. (mk)
|
|
Filing
187
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 2/13/2019: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court grants the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment 81 with respect to Lipton's liability for breach of contract, which is count 4 of plaintiff's amended complaint. (mk)
|
|
Filing
180
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 1/25/2019: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court finds that the ruling of the District Court for the Southern District of New Yo rk in Secured Worldwide v. Kinney precludes the defendants from relitigating the issue of whether Lipton breached the covenant not to compete. The Court declines to rule on the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment [dkt. no. 81] becau se the parties' briefs fail to discuss whether, and to what extent, GemShares is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of the issue-preclusion finding. The case is set for a status hearing, to be conducted by telephone, on February 1, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. Counsel are to jointly call chambers (312-435-4618). (mk)
|
|
Filing
60
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court dismisses counts 1 and 2 of plaintiff's amended complaint to the extent they are premised on claims 7 through 11 of the 513 patent but otherwise denies defendants' motion to dismiss [dkt. no. 43]. The case remains set for a status hearing on February 12, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel should be prepared to set a discovery and pretrial schedule at that time. (mk)
|
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.
