Caddy Products, Inc. v. American Seating Company

Justia Dockets & Filings Eighth Circuit Minnesota District Court Caddy Products, Inc. v. American Seating Company

Caddy Products, Inc. v. American Seating Company

Case Number:	0:2005cv00800
Filed:	April 20, 2005
Court:	US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Presiding Judge:	Franklin L. Noel
Presiding Judge:	John R. Tunheim
Nature of Suit:	Patent

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
July 30, 2009	Filing 195 ORDER re 194 Stipulation filed by American Seating Company, Caddy Products, Inc. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction through Monday, August 3, 2009, to permit any party to move to reopen the lawsuit, for good cause shown, or to submit and file a stipulated form of final judgment, or to seek enforcement of the settlement terms.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on July 30, 2009. (HAM)
March 24, 2009	Filing 176 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (1) granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 143 Motion for Summary Judgment. Motion is granted to the extent that defendant may not argue invalidity of the Reissue pate nt for failure to name a proper co-inventor. Motion is denied in all other aspects; (2) granting in part and denying in part defendant's 147 Motion for Summary Judgment. Motion is granted on non-infringement of the Reiss ue Patent's Claim 15 limitation of a pair of spaced side shield walls; Claim 17 limitation of a pair of spaced side shield walls; and Claim 20 limitation of an obscured fastener opening.Motion is denied in all other respects. (3) Plainti ff's request for leave to supplement the record for the purposes of these motions is denied as moot. (4) Defendant's request for leave to supplement the record for the purposes of these motions is denied as moot. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on March 24, 2009. (dml)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 30, 2009

Filing 195 ORDER re 194 Stipulation filed by American Seating Company, Caddy Products, Inc. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction through Monday, August 3, 2009, to permit any party to move to reopen the lawsuit, for good cause shown, or to submit and file a stipulated form of final judgment, or to seek enforcement of the settlement terms.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on July 30, 2009. (HAM)

March 24, 2009

Filing 176 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (1) granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 143 Motion for Summary Judgment. Motion is granted to the extent that defendant may not argue invalidity of the Reissue pate nt for failure to name a proper co-inventor. Motion is denied in all other aspects; (2) granting in part and denying in part defendant's 147 Motion for Summary Judgment. Motion is granted on non-infringement of the Reiss ue Patent's Claim 15 limitation of a pair of spaced side shield walls; Claim 17 limitation of a pair of spaced side shield walls; and Claim 20 limitation of an obscured fastener opening.Motion is denied in all other respects. (3) Plainti ff's request for leave to supplement the record for the purposes of these motions is denied as moot. (4) Defendant's request for leave to supplement the record for the purposes of these motions is denied as moot. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on March 24, 2009. (dml)

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

Search for this case: Caddy Products, Inc. v. American Seating Company
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| 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?