Ecolab USA Inc. et al v. Diversey, Inc.
| Ecolab USA Inc. and Kleancheck Systems, LLC |
| Diversey, Inc. |
| 0:2012cv01984 |
| August 14, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| Ramsey |
| Jeanne J. Graham |
| Susan Richard Nelson |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 145 |
| 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
368
ORDER: 1. Denying as moot Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude Defendant From Introducing Evidence, Testimony, or Argument Relating to the Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,785,109 [Doc. No. 248]; 2. Deferring ruling on Plaintiffs' Moti on to Preclude Defendant From Introducing Evidence, Testimony, or Argument Comparing the Accused Product to Preferred Embodiments or Commercial Embodiments [Doc. No. 255]; 3. Deferring ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude Defendant From Intr oducing Evidence, Testimony, or Argument Relating to the Prosecution Histories of the Patents in Suit [Doc. No. 263]; 4. Deferring ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude Defendant From Introducing Evidence, Testimony, or Argument Relating to P rior Art That Was Not Disclosed as a Basis for Defendant's Invalidity Contentions [Doc. No. 268]; 5. Denying as moot Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude Defendant From Introducing Evidence, Testimony, or Argument Relating to Noninfringing Substi tutes Only Available Outside the U.S. [Doc. No. 279]; 6. Denying as moot Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude Defendant From Introducing Evidence, Testimony, or Argument Relating to Defendant's Own Patents or Patent Applications [Doc. No. 289]; 7 . Granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude Defendant From Re-arguing Claim Construction to the Jury [Doc. No. 297]; 8. Denying as moot Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude Defendant From Introducing at Trial the Deposit ion Testimony of Mr. Warren P. Heim [Doc. No. 303]; 9. Denying Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Evidence, Argument, or Expert Testimony That Ecolab's EnCompass System Practices or is Covered by the Asserted Patents [Doc. No. 249] ; 10. Denying Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Evidence, Argument, or Expert Testimony that Defendant Copied Ecolab's EnCompass (DAZO) System, Ecolab's Promotional Materials, or the Patents-in-Suit [Doc. No. 274]; 11. Denyin g Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs From Offering Any Evidence, Argument, or Expert Testimony Regarding Any Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness [Doc. No. 288]; 12. Denying Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Unt imely Disclosed Trial Witnesses [Doc. No. 310]; 13. Granting Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence That Its Damages Expert's Opinions Have Been Excluded in Other Cases [Doc. No. 313]; and 14. Denying Defendant's Motion in L imine to Exclude Evidence Comparing Defendant's Damages Expert's Royalty Calculation to Amounts Paid to Opinion Counsel, Experts, or in This Litigation [Doc. No. 321]. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 5/15/2015. (LDB)
|
|
Filing
365
REDACTED version of 278 Memorandum Opinion and Order Filed on April 28, 2015 (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (SMD)
|
|
Filing
69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 49 MOTION Claim Construction filed by Kleancheck Systems, LLC, Ecolab USA Inc., 46 MOTION For Claim Construction filed by Diversey, Inc (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 1/23/14. (LPH)
|
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 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.
