Byrne v. Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP et al
| Stephen E. Byrne |
| Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP, David S. Stallard, Kevin T. Rooney, Theodore R. Remakous, P. Andrew Blatt, Wayne L. Jacobs, Taliaferro, Shirooni, Carran & Keys, PLLC and Philip Taliaferro, III |
| 2:2008cv00102 |
| May 30, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Covington Office |
| Kenton |
| Danny C. Reeves |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal |
| 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
89
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is ordered that 1) Defendant's 45 MOTION for Summary Judgment, construed as a motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED; 2) Defendants' 57 MOTION to strike portions of the Affidavit of Steven Byrne i n Support of Plaintiff Byrne's Memorandum in opposition to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED insofar as the affidavit contains proposed expert testimony concerning technical aspects of the Byrne and Bartholomew patents, the patentability of a hypothetical claim, and whether such a claim would have been infringed by Black & Decker; 3) Defendants' 58 MOTION to Strike portions of the Affidavit of David Kiesel in support of Plaintiff Byrne's Memorandum in Oppos ition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED insofar as the affidavit contains proposed expert testimony concerning technical aspects of the Byrne and Bartholomew patents, the patentability of a hypothetical claim, whether such a claim would have been infringed by Black & Decker, and alleged negligence by the Defendants in the Black & December infringement suit. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 8/26/10.(TED)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
87
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is ordered: 1) Plaintiff's 77 MOTION for Reconsideration re 75 Memorandum Opinion & Order of July 30, 2009 is GRANTED; 2) Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of July 30, 2009 77 is VACATED; 3) Court wi ll reconsider dfts' Motion for Summary Judgment 45 , Dfts' Motion to strike portions of the Affidavit of Steven Byrne in support of Plf Byrne's Memorandum in Opposition to Dfts' Motion for Summary Judgment 57 and Dfts' Mot ion to strike portions of the Affidavit of William David Kiesel in support of Plf Byrne's Memorandum in opposition to dfts' Motion for Summary Judgment 58 ; 4) Plf's 78 MOTION to Supplement Record of Summary Judgment Motion 78 is GRANTED; 5) Supplemental Affidavit of William David Kiesel [78-2] shall be FILED in the record.. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 12/16/09.(TED)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
75
VACATED PURSUANT TO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 87 . MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: IT IS ORDERED as follows: (1) The Defendants' motion for summary judgment 45 , construed as a motion for partial summary judgment, is GRANTED; (2) The Defendants' motion to strike portions of William David Kiesel's affidavit 58 is GRANTED insofar as his affidavit contains proposed expert testimony on the issue of negligence as it relates to the patent application process. (3) The Defendants' motion to strike portions of Plaintiff Steven Byrne's affidavit 57 is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 7/30/2009.(JMM)cc: COR Modified text to add VACATED pursuant to Order 87 on 12/16/2009 (TED).
|
|
Filing
68
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff Stephen E. Byrne's MOTION for Leave to file a First Amended Complaint 48 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 3/10/2009.(JMM)cc: COR
|
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 Kentucky Eastern 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.
