HR Technology, Inc. v. Imura International U.S.A., Inc. et al
| Thermal Solutions, Inc. |
| Imura International U.S.A., Inc., Vita Craft Corporation and Mamoru Imura |
| 2:2008cv02220 |
| May 9, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Kansas City Office |
| Sedgwick |
| John W. Lungstrum |
| David J. Waxse |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 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
516
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 515 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Vacate. The first paragraph of the 459 Amended Judgment and the corresponding ruling in the Court's 382 Memorandum and Order of 03/09/2012 are hereby VACATED. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 2/10/2014. (ses)
|
|
Filing
511
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 437 Motion by Imura International U.S.A., Inc. for Attorney Fees; and denying 510 HR Technology, Inc's Motion for Oral Argument. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 5/29/2013. (ses)
|
|
Filing
487
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 472 Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Dismiss or to Alter or Amend the Judgment. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 2/4/2013. (ses)
|
|
Filing
458
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - It is ordered that plaintiff HR Technology, Inc. is awarded judgment on its claim for specific performance against defendants Imura International U.S.A., Inc. and Vita Craft Corporation. Those defendants shall return all " ;Confidential Information," as that term is defined in Section 19 of the relevant license agreements between the parties, and as interpreted by the Court herein, without retention of any copies, on or before October 26, 2012. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 9/28/2012. (ses)
|
|
Filing
446
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 438 Motion to for new trial or to alter or amend judgment. The motion is granted with respect to HR Technology's request that the Court permit it to assert a claim for specific perfor mance of defendants' alleged post-termination contractual obligation to return certain material to it, and the Court will set a status conference to address the procedure and schedule for litigation of that claim. The motion is denied in all other respects. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 7/20/2012. (ses)
|
|
Filing
434
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - It is ordered that defendant HRT is awarded judgment on plaintiff Vita Crafts claim of inequitable conduct. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 4/24/2012. (ses)
|
|
Filing
382
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 349 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and plaintiffs claims for declaratory judgments relating to the 675 Patent are hereby dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and granting in part and denying in part 342 Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion is granted with respect to plaintiffs claim for infringement of the 169 Patent, and with respect to defendants claims seeking declarations that certain claims of the 585 Patent, the 169 Patent, and the 5 13 Patent are invalid as obvious; defendants are awarded summary judgment on those claims. The motion is denied with respect to defendants claim that plaintiffs patents are unenforceable because of inequitable conduct. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 3/9/2012. (ses)
|
|
Filing
319
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 303 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 305 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 307 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 6/3/2011. (ses)
|
|
Filing
311
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part the 282 Motion for Discovery Sanctions. Plaintiff shall produce any additional documents responsive to Request 52 on or before April 29, 2011. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT plaintiffs request for oral argument (Doc. # 297) is denied. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 4/20/2011. (ses)
|
|
Filing
301
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 281 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum and Order of 11/17/2010; denying 297 Motion for Oral Arguement to the extent that it relates to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. By March 7, 2 011, plaintiff shall produce to defendants unredacted copies of the documents that it previously produced in a redacted form. Plaintiff shall also file with the Court, under seal, copies of those unredacted documents by March 7, 2011. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 3/4/2011. (ses)
|
|
Filing
280
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 250 Motion for Sanctions. Defendants are awarded their fees and expenses incurred with respect to this motion. Plaintiff is ordered to produce any additional documents, as set forth herein, as soon as possible, and no later than December 1, 2010. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 11/17/2010. (ses)
|
|
Filing
118
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Certain terms in the patents at issue in this action are construed as set forth in this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 09/29/2009.(ses)
|
|
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 30 Motion to Dismiss by defendants Imura International USA, Inc. and Vita Corporation. It is further ordered that the moving defendants request for an extension of time in which to respond to the remainder of the amended complaint (Doc. #30) is granted, and the moving defendants shall file their responses to the entirety of the amended complaint on or before October 17, 2008. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 10/2/2008. (ses)
|
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 Kansas 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.
