Tecossl, Inc v. Avid Labs, LLC et al
| Tecossl, Inc |
| Patrick Bates, Techmatic Inc. and Avid Labs, LLC |
| 5:2019cv00043 |
| February 12, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Joseph M Hood |
| Patent |
| 15:1126 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 1, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
AGREED ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the #13 Parties' Joint Motion to extend the current deadline for Defendant Avid Labs, LLC to file their responsive pleading to the Complaint filed in this above-styled matter until April 19, 2019, be, and is, GRANTED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 4/1/19.(JLM)cc: COR
|
| Filing 13 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint, by Avid Labs, LLC (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Agreed Order)(Graves, Trevor) |
| Filing 12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Tecossl, Inc via certified mail through the Secretary of State to Techmatic Inc. served on 4/1/2019, answer due 4/22/2019. (Attachments: #1 certified mail receipt)(KJR) |
| Filing 11 SUMMONS RETURNED SERVICE BY SECRETARY OF STATE to Avid Labs, LLC COMPLETED on 3/25/2019. Secretary of State return states Served Avid Labs, LLC via Certified Mail, return receipt on 3/13/2019. (Attachments: #1 Signed Green Card)(KM) |
| Filing 10 Summons Issued as to Patrick Bates, Techmatic Inc.; Summons issued and service packet returned to counsel by U.S. Mail for service by Secretary of State. (KM) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF FILING by Tecossl, Inc (Attachments: #1 Summons to Patrick Bates, #2 Summons to Techmatic Inc.)(Francis, James) |
| Filing 8 Summons Issued as to Avid Labs, LLC; Summons issued and service packet returned to counsel by U.S. Mail for service by Secretary of State. (KM) Modified text on 3/5/2019 (KM). |
| Clerk's Note re #7 Summons Returned Unexecuted and Request for Reissue: Clerk spoke to attorney and requested new summons be filed into the record as to defendants Techmatic Inc. and Patrick Bates so summons could reissued. (KM) |
| Filing 7 Summons Returned Unexecuted and Request for Reissue by Tecossl, Inc as to All Defendants. (Attachments: #1 Summons not served, #2 Summons to Avid Labs LLC)(Francis, James) Modified text on 3/4/2019 (KM). |
| Filing 6 FRCP 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Tecossl, Inc. (Francis, James) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY RE: FAILURE TO FILE FRCP 7.1 DISCLOSURES to counsel of record, James M. Francis. #1 Complaint, has been filed by Tecossl, Inc without the required Rule 7.1 Disclosure statement. Rule 7.1 Disclosures must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days. Failure to file the Disclosure Statement will cause the case to be submitted to the presiding judge for further action. cc: COR (KM) |
| Filing 4 REPORT on the Filing or Determination of an Action Regarding a Patent re #1 Complaint. cc: form e-mailed to Register. (KM) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Avid Labs, LLC, Patrick Bates, Techmatic Inc.; Summons issued and returned to counsel electronically (KM) |
| Conflict Check run. (KM) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT (Filing fee $400; receipt number 0643-4283188), filed by Tecossl, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A -Non-Disclosure Agreement, #2 Exhibit B - 929 Patent Application, #3 Exhibit C - Branded Product, #4 Civil Cover Sheet, #5 Summons Avid Labs, Inc., #6 Summons Techmatic, Inc., #7 Summons Patrick Bates)(KM) |
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 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.
