Reddy v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. et al
| Maureen Reddy |
| Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Evolution Lighting, LLC |
| 1:2013cv13016 |
| November 25, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Suffolk |
| William G. Young |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
| 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
206
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. JUDGMENT (MacDonald, Gail)
|
|
Filing
204
Judge Indira Talwani: For the reasons set for the in the attached Order, Plaintiffs Counterclaims are DISMISSED as moot and the pending motionsDefendants Motion for Summary Judgment on Counterclaims of Invalidity and Unenforceability 175 , Plaintiff s Motion to Lift Confidential Designation on a Selection of Impounded Documents 178 (sealed), Defendants Motion to Seal 179 and Defendants Motion to Dismiss Second, Third and Fourth Counterclaims are DENIED AS MOOT.Defendants shall submit a proposed judgment no later than July 25, 2016.SO ORDERED.(MacDonald, Gail)
|
|
Filing
149
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. Defendant Lowe's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement [#101] is ALLOWED, Defendant Evolution's Motion for Summary Judgment [#106] is ALLOWED insofar as it joins Lowe's argument on non-infringement and is otherwise DENIED as moot, Defendant Lowe's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity [#98] is DENIED as moot. (IT, law2)
|
|
Filing
125
Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER For the reasons stated above, on June 4, 2014, this Court ADOPTED Reddys proposed claim construction: The ornamental design for a bathroom vanity light shade, as shown and described in Fig ures 1-5. Elec. Clerks Notes, June 4, 2014, ECF No. 42. This construction is without prejudice to any future jury instructions on functional versus ornamental elements, prosecution history, prior art, or any other similar factors. SO ORDERED.(Sonnenberg, Elizabeth)
|
|
Filing
119
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered granting 113 Motion to Seal Documents. The sealed documents can now be filed on paper and under seal. (MacDonald, Gail)
|
|
Filing
115
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered re 105 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Maureen Reddy (MacDonald, Gail)
|
|
Filing
96
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 57 Motion to Compel (MacDonald, Gail)
|
|
Filing
94
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered re 93 Stipulation filed by Lowe's Companies, Inc. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims under Mass. G. L. c. 93A against defendant Lowe's Companies, Inc. are dismissed with prejudice. See attached Order. (MacDonald, Gail)
|
|
Filing
44
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. This court hereby orders that the Parties Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order 43 is ALLOWED IN PART AND DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. To the extent that the proposed protective order governs the excha nge of documents and information between the Parties, the motion is ALLOWED. Insofar as the proposed protective order governs the use of confidential information in any court proceeding or court filing, however, nothing in the protective order limits this courts power to make orders concerning the disclosure or impoundment of documents produced in discovery or at trial. To that end, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a party making a particularized showing for the need for impoundment.Thi s court is guided in this regard by First Circuit precedent and Local Rule 7.2. Because the public has a presumptive right of access to judicial documents only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records that come withi n the scope of the common-law right of access.2 The burden is thus on the impoundment-seeking party to show that impoundment will not violate the publics presumptive right of access.3 For that reason, when seeking to file under seal any confidential information, a party must show this court good cause for the impoundment.4 Specifically, the party seeking impoundment must make a particular factual demonstration of potential harm, not... conclusory statements5 as to why a document should be sealed. This court will not enter blanket orders for impoundment. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
|
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 Massachusetts 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.
