CAPITAL MACHINE COMPANY, INC. et al v. MILLER VENEERS, INC. et al
| CAPITAL MACHINE COMPANY, INC. and INDIANA FORGE, LLC |
| MILLER VENEERS, INC., THOMAS A. MILLER, BENJAMIN R. MILLER, WILLIAM R. MILLER, SALLY M. SANDO, ROBERT D. BRAND, INDIANAPOLIS VENEER WORKS, LLC, EGENOLF MACHINE, INC., MERRITT MACHINERY, LLC and MERRITT PLYWOOD MACHINERY, INC. |
| 1:2009cv00702 |
| June 8, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Marion |
| David Frank Hamilton |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Patent |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1338 Patent Infringement |
| Both |
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
351
ORDER - The Court concludes that its construction of "flitch" -- which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit -- is indeed dispositive of all the Asserted Claims. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Miller Veneers' Motion for Summary Judgmen t, [dkt. 323 ], DENIES Capital Machine's Motion for Hearing, [dkt. 332 ], and DENIES Capital Machine's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order, [dkt. 346 ]. Final judgment will issue accordingly. ***SEE ORDER***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/13/2013. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
287
ORDER - The Counterclaim Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, dkt. 266 , is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is granted to the extent that (1) the "misnaming" Counterclaims fail as to Capital Machine for the same reasons that they failed as to Mr. Koss and (2) the "misnaming" allegations in Affirmative Defenses 4 and 6 in Miller Veneers' current Answer, dkt. 76 , are ineffective under Rule 9(b). The motion is otherwise denied. As no motion to amend the Counterclaims was filed, no leave is given. In light of the Court's rulings above, the Counterclaim Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a surreply, dkt. 279 , is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/25/2012. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
283
ORDER - Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of Markman Ruling, Dkt. 253 , is granted in part and denied in part. Because oral argument was not necessary to resolve the motion, Plaintiffs' Motion for Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration, dkt. 262 , is DENIED. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/10/2012. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
258
ENTRY Setting Case Management Deadlines and Addressing Expert Deposition Issue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 10/17/2011. (LH)
|
|
Filing
247
ORDER - The definitions set in this Order will control the interpretation of the Patents-in-Suit going forward. Capital Machine's 213 Motion Regarding Defendants' Waiver of Markman/Claim Construction Issues is DENIED to the extent that it seeks to waive claim construction but GRANTED to whatever extent the Court has accepted Capital Machine's constructions of disputed terms. The Court requests that Magistrate Judge Lynch assist the parties in the development of a Phase II Uniform Patent Case Management Plan at her earliest convenience. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/14/2011. (JKS) Modified on 9/14/2011 (JKS).
|
|
Filing
225
ORDER denying Defendants' 215 Motion to Strike Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff's Markman Brief (S.O.). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/2/2011. (MAC)
|
|
Filing
191
ORDER re: Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order of September 16, 2010. [Dkt. 179.]. The Court, having partially reconsidered its earlier order, and for the reasons stated herein, ORDERS that Barnes & Thornburg ("B&T"), and all their attorneys, may not represent any adversary to Capital, Indiana Forge or William Koss in this action before this Court, and all B&T attorneys must promptly file motions to withdraw their appearances. The Court further ORDERS all deadlines i n the case STAYED until December 22, 2010, by which time Miller must have retained patent counsel if it intends to do so. The current CMP is vacated. Within 15 days of patent counsel's appearance, the parties must meet and confer and file a pr oposed revised CMP based on the Court's Uniform Patent CMP. Magistrate Judge Baker is requested to conduct a status conference upon the filing of the proposed revised CMP. The trial date may be adjusted based on the revised CMP. To the extent that Miller's motion to reconsider [dkt. 179] seeks any additional relief, the motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/22/2010. (LBK)
|
|
Filing
149
ENTRY re: 54 William L. Koss's Motion to Dismiss and 79 Renewed Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons discussed herein, Mr. Koss's Motion to Dismiss and Renewed Motion to Dismiss the defendants' counterclaims are granted in part and d enied in part: (1) his Rule 12(b)(6) motion is DENIED because he is properly named now as a defendant for purposes of the defendants' claim for an award of fees; (2) his Rule 9(b) motion directed against the allegations that he engaged in inequi table conduct before the Patent Office by misrepresenting the inventors of the plaintiffs' six patents is GRANTED; and (3) his Rule 9(b) motion directed against the allegations that he engaged in inequitable conduct against the Patent Office by failing to disclose that Capital Machine's pocket-grooving machine was on-sale more than one year before the plaintiffs' earliest patent applications were filed is DENIED. Once the issue of the pending motion to strike Plaintiff's Ame nded Complaint has been resolved, and when the time for responsive pleading is ripe, the defendants shall file a revised answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims omitting the allegations that Mr. Koss engaged in inequitable conduct by misrepresenting the inventors of the six patents. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/27/2010. (LBK)
|
|
Filing
126
ORDER - For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiffs Capital Machine Company, Inc. and Indiana Forge, LLC's 89 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. See Order. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/28/2010. (LBK)
|
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 Indiana Southern 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.
