Caddo Systems, Inc. et al v. Progress Software Corporation
Plaintiff: Caddo Systems, Inc. and 511 Technologies Inc.
Defendant: Progress Software Corporation
Case Number: 1:2022cv10815
Filed: May 27, 2022
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Presiding Judge: William G Young
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 145 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 22, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
July 22, 2022 Filing 14 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Progress Software Corporation identifying Corporate Parent None for Progress Software Corporation.. (Anderson, James)
July 22, 2022 Filing 13 MEMORANDUM in Support re #12 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Progress Software Corporation. (Anderson, James)
July 22, 2022 Filing 12 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Progress Software Corporation.(Anderson, James)
July 5, 2022 Filing 11 Judge William G. Young: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #10 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to July 22, 2022 to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint. (Paine, Matthew)
June 30, 2022 Filing 10 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to July 22, 2022 to Respond to Complaint by 511 Technologies Inc., Caddo Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chan, Alex) Modified on 7/5/2022 to Correct CM/ECF NextGen Filing Event As Counsel Filed the Motion Under the Wrong Event in CM/ECF. (Paine, Matthew).
June 10, 2022 Filing 9 SUMMONS Returned Executed Progress Software Corporation served on 6/10/2022, answer due 7/1/2022. (McGonigle, William)
June 1, 2022 Filing 8 Judge William G. Young: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #5 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Alex Chan. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual upgraded PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. Counsel may need to link their CM/ECF account to their upgraded individual pacer account. Instructions on how to link CM/ECF accounts to upgraded pacer account can be found at # https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-current-pacer-accounts.htm#link-account. (Paine, Matthew)
May 31, 2022 Filing 7 REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION REGARDING PATENT OR TRADEMARK. (McGonigle, William)
May 31, 2022 Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Raymond P. Ausrotas on behalf of 511 Technologies Inc., Caddo Systems, Inc. (Ausrotas, Raymond)
May 31, 2022 Filing 5 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Alex Chan Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number AMADC-9344676 by 511 Technologies Inc., Caddo Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order, #2 Declaration)(McGonigle, William)
May 27, 2022 Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Progress Software Corporation. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Dore, Samantha)
May 27, 2022 Filing 3 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge William G. Young assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein. (Finn, Mary)
May 27, 2022 Filing 2 ELECTRONIC NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Counsel shall complete and file in PDF format a Report on Filing or Determination Re: Patent or Trademark AO 120. The form can be found on the court's website under Resources/Forms/Local Forms. Counsel will use the event under Other Documents - Report on the filing of patent/trademark case. (Dore, Samantha)
May 27, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Progress Software Corporation Filing fee: $ 402, receipt number AMADC-9342808 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by 511 Technologies Inc., Caddo Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Category Form, #2 Civil Action Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit 1 to Complaint, #4 Exhibit 2 to Complaint, #5 Exhibit 3 to Complaint, #6 Exhibit 4 to Complaint, #7 Exhibit 5 to Complaint, #8 Exhibit 6 to Complaint, #9 Exhibit 7 to Complaint)(McGonigle, William) Modified on 5/27/2022: Updated docket text. (Dore, Samantha).

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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Caddo Systems, Inc. et al v. Progress Software Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Caddo Systems, Inc.
Represented By: William F. McGonigle, III
Represented By: Alex Chan
Represented By: Raymond P. Ausrotas
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 ]
Plaintiff: 511 Technologies Inc.
Represented By: William F. McGonigle, III
Represented By: Alex Chan
Represented By: Raymond P. Ausrotas
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: Progress Software Corporation
Represented By: James R. Anderson
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?