Layne Christensen Company v. The Purolite Company
Plaintiff: Layne Christensen Company
Defendant: The Purolite Company
Case Number: 2:2009cv02381
Filed: July 21, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Kansas
Office: Kansas City Office
County: Johnson
Presiding Judge: John W. Lungstrum
Presiding Judge: Gerald L. Rushfelt
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 720 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying as moot 666 Purolite's original motion for judgment as a mattter of law and to strike testimony; denying 680 Plaintiffs' motion for enhanced damages and attorney fees; granting in part and denying in part [ 698] Defendant Purolite's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a matter of law and to strike testimony; denying 701 Puolite's Motion to Strike plaintiffs' reply brief ; granting 710 Plaintiffs' Motion for Permanent Injunction; denying 717 Purolite's Motion to Strike a portion of a supporting affidavit. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 5/16/2012. (ses)
December 30, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 560 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 507 Motion of Matthew L. Levine and The Purolite Company for Limited Reconsideration of the Courts October 6, 2011 Order; denying 546 Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Reconsideration and to File Under Seal; denying 555 Defendants Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Movants have shown no basis to reconsider 452 the order of October 6, 2011. Plaintiffs have shown no good cause or extraordinary circumstances to justify the filing of a sur-reply. The denial of the motion to file a surreply makes defendant's motion for leave to file under seal unnecessary. Notwithstanding its denial of these three motions, the Court on its own motion provides a mech anism for the withdrawal of the sanction previously entered against Mr. Levine. See Memorandum and Opinion for further details about the Court's rulings and the withdrawal mechanism. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 12/30/2011. (bw)
December 23, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 559 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 404 plaintiff Laynes motion for summary judgment on certain of Purolites counterclaims; granting in part and denying in part 406 Laynes motion for partial summary judgment on its claims for breach of contract; granti ng in part and denying in part 408 plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its claims of patent infringement; granting in part and denying in part 410 Purolites motion for summary judgment on certain of plaintiffs claims; granting in part and d enying in part 426 plaintiffs motion to exclude expert testimony by Richard Troxel; denying 428 plaintiffs motion to exclude certain expert sur-rebuttal reports; denying 430 defendant Purolites motion to exclude expert testimony by Dennis Clifford; granting 542 plaintiffs motion for leave to file a declaration by Dr. Clifford. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 12/23/2011. (ses)
October 6, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 452 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 295 Plaintiffs Layne and SenGupta's Motion to Compel Discovery. See Memorandum and Order for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 10/6/2011. (bw)
August 31, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 384 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 301 Plaintiff Laynes Motion to Compel Discovery and denying as unnecessary 338 Defendants Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and expenses incurred in connection with the motion to compel. See Memorandum and Order for more specifics. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 8/31/2011. (bw)
August 29, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 378 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 298 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer. Defendant shall electronically file its Amended Answer to 222 Second Amended Complaint forthwith. See Memorandum and Order for more details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 8/29/2011. (bw)
July 22, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 344 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - It is ordered that certain terms in the patent at issue in this action are construed as set forth herein.. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 7/22/2011. (ses)
May 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 286 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying Defendant's request for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the filing of its motion for protective order prohibiting Plaintiffs from deposing its counsel of record. Although the motion was granted (ECF No. 199), the Court finds that Plaintiffs were substantially justified in opposing the motion for protective order, and sanctions should not be imposed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 5/25/2011. (byk)
May 13, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 269 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 201 Defendant's Motion to Compel documents responsive to Requests for Production No. 211 to Layne, and Nos. 175 and 176 to SenGupta. It is further ordered that Plaintiffs' request for costs and fees incurred in connection with opposing the motion is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 5/13/2011. (byk)
March 29, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 199 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 84 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. The Court grants a protective order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), to prohibit Plaintiffs from deposing Defendant's counsel of record, Robert C. Sullivan, Jr. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT within twenty (20) days from the date of this order Plaintiffs shall show cause in writing, why sanctions should not be imposed, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c)(3) and 37(a)(5), for the filing of the motion. Within fourteen (14) days thereafter Defendant may respond thereto, and Plaintiffs may then reply within fourteen (14) days of service of the response. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 3/29/2011. (byk)
March 24, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 192 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 115 Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify Counsel. It is further ordered that Defendant's request for sanctions is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 3/24/2011. (byk)
January 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 167 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 66 Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order and 89 Second Motion for Protective Order. Within 30 days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, Plaintiffs shall serve their responses to Defendant's First Set of Requests for Admission to Layne and Defendant's First Set of Requests for Admission to SenGupta. Within 45 days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, Plaintiffs shall serve their responses to Defendant's Second Set of Requests for Admission to Layne. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 1/25/2011. (byk)
January 24, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 166 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 68 Defendant's Motion to Compel. Within 30 days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, Plaintiffs shall serve supplemental answers to Defendant's Interrogatory Nos. 2, 4, and 6. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 1/24/2011. (byk)
January 14, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 162 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 138 Defendant's Opposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel; denying 154 Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Responses to Requests for Production; and finding as moot 161 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Purolite's Motion to Compel or, in the alternative, Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to Purolite's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 1/14/2011. (byk)
July 28, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 79 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 37 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 7/28/2010. (byk)
December 4, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 21 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion to Transfer This Action and To Join a Necessary Party. Defendants motion for transfer is denied. Defendants motion to join a necessary party is granted. Plaintiff shall file, by December 18, 2009, an amended complaint joining Arup SenGupta as a party to this action. If plaintiff fails to file such an amended complaint by that date and does not show good cause for its failure to do so, plaintiffs claim for patent infringement shall be dismissed Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 12/04/2009. (ses)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Layne Christensen Company v. The Purolite Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Layne Christensen Company
Represented By: Richard R. Johnson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: The Purolite Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?