TECNOMATIC, S.P.A. v. REMY, INC. et al
| TECNOMATIC, S.P.A. |
| 1-10 DOES, HANSON SYSTEMS, LLC D/B/A EAGLE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, ODAWARA AUTOMATION, INC., REMY COMPONENTES S. DE R.L. DE C.V., REMY INTERNATIONAL, INC., REMY, INC. and DELCO REMY MEXICO, S.R.L. DE C.V. |
| 1:2011cv00991 |
| July 25, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) |
| 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
647
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS - The Motions to Dismiss [Dkt Nos. 614 and 616] are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The breach of contract claims against the Individual Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Tecnomatic's conversion cla im is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Italian copyright infringement claims set out in the TAC are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The claims for trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement pursuant to the United States Copyright Act, and correction of inventorship survive dismissal, and the motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 6/24/2014. (CKM)
|
|
Filing
641
ORDER - ON TECNOMATIC'S MOTION TO COMPEL ; The Court hereby DENIES Tecnomatic's Motion to Compel Regarding Privilege. [Dkt. 586.]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 6/3/2014. *** SEE ORDER *** (CKM)
|
|
Filing
588
ORDER - Remy Inc., Remy International, Inc., Delco Remy Mexico, S.R. L. de C.V., and Remy Componentes S. de C.V. Petition for Attorneys' Fees [Dkt. No. 395 ] (as supplemented by Dkt. No. 426 ) seeking an award of $53,900.84 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 12/17/2013. (JD)
|
|
Filing
497
ORDER - Tecnomatic's Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration [Dkt. No. 234] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. We hereby vacate the portion of our previous ruling [Dkt. No. 230] dismissing Tecnomatic's trade secret misappropriatio n claim on statute of limitations grounds. In light of the supplemental briefing submitted by the parties on the issue of Tecnomatic's unjust enrichment claim [Dkt. No. 423], Tecnomatic's. unjust enrichment claim is dismissed based on it s preemption by the IUTSA. Tecnomatic's Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration [Dkt. No. 294] is DENIED, subject to the clarification regarding the dismissal of the claims with prejudice as stated herein. Remy's Motion for Judgme nt on the Pleadings [Dkt. No. 290] is DENIED, and Tecnomatic shall have 21 days within which to amend its Complaint in accordance with our rulings herein. We caution Tecnomatic that when re-fashioning its Complaint it is to include only those a llegations based on newly discovered evidence and may not plead claims that this Court has already dismissed. In light of our decision to allow Tecnomatic to amend its Complaint, the two Motions to Dismiss Tecnomatic's First Amended Complaint [Dkt. Nos. 436, 462] filed by Odawara and Remy and a Motion to Strike [Dkt. No. 437] filed by Odawara are DENIED AS MOOT. Defendants may refile these motions, if necessary, once Tecnomatic had filed its Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 6/20/2013. (CKM)
|
|
Filing
489
ORDER - The Court hereby GRANTS Tecnomatic's Motion for Leave to Add Correction of Patent Inventorship to Tecnomatic's First Amended Complaint. [Dkt. 416 .] (See Order.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 6/4/2013. (JD)
|
|
Filing
422
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Remy's 300 Motion to Compel (see Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/28/2013. (SWM)
|
|
Filing
420
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Tecnomatic's 317 Motion to Compel (see Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/27/2013. (SWM)
|
|
Filing
421
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; We adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as to Tecnomatic's Motion for Sanctions with regard to that Motion being denied because Tecnomatic failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and L.R. 37- 1 prior to filing the Motion and did not include a certification of its meet and confer efforts in its Motion. We incorporate section II.A of the Report and Recommendation by reference herein. We find that the remainder of the Repor t and Recommendation is dicta and thus is not addressed further at this time. Accordingly, Tecnomatic's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. The Court will rule on Remy's Motion for Attorney Fees (Docket No. 395) by separate order. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/26/2013.(CKM)
|
|
Filing
412
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Remy's 304 Motion for Protective Order. Remy's motion for an award of their reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, in bringing the motion is denied (see Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/21/2013. (SWM)
|
|
Filing
390
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 213 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS filed by TECNOMATIC S.P.A. - The Court recommends DENYING Tecnomatic's Motion for Sanctions [Dkt. 213 ]. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B) requires the Court to hold a hearing and consider the apportionment of attorney's fees and expenses when such a motion is denied, and both parties have requested attorney's fees (or other "appropriate relief"). Accordingly, Remy is ordered to file a petition for such fees and expenses on or before March 11, 2013, which will be addressed as a separate matter. **SEE ENTRY** Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/19/2013.(JKS)
|
|
Filing
283
ORDER - granting in part and denying in part 98 Motion to Dismiss. *** SEE ORDER ***. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 6/22/2012. (CKM)
|
|
Filing
190
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 176 in full and incorporates it by reference herein. Accordingly, Defendant Tecnomatic S.P.A., Inc.'s Motion to Exclude Expert Report of William S. Howard 131 is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 2/14/2012. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
137
ORDER denying Pltf's 130 Motion to Compel (See Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/27/2011. (SWM)
|
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.
