Monsanto Company et al v. Slusser
Plaintiff: |
Monsanto Company and Monsanto Technology, LLC |
Defendant: |
Kevin Slusser |
Case Number: |
4:2010cv00075 |
Filed: |
January 14, 2010 |
Court: |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
Office: |
St. Louis Office |
County: |
Adair |
Presiding Judge: |
David D. Noce |
Presiding Judge: |
|
Nature of Suit: |
Patent |
Cause of Action: |
35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement |
Jury Demanded By: |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
March 29, 2013 |
Filing
76
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 3/29/13. (KKS)
|
April 11, 2012 |
Filing
58
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DEFAULT AND ORDER SETTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Kevin Slusser is and has been in default on the complaint filed in this action, regarding plaintiffs' claims for defendant's saving a nd using plaintiffs' Roundup Ready soybean seed during the 2009 growing season in contravention of plaintiffs' patent rights and rights under their license agreement with defendant. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs are granted leave to serve defendant Slusser discovery requests related to any outstanding issues in this case. Defendant Slusser shall respond to those and any outstanding discovery requests within the times set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant Slusser shall appear in person for his deposition either as noticed by plaintiffs or as agreed upon by the parties. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all further discovery requests shall be submitted in hand to the opposing side not later than June 1, 2012, and shall be responded to not later than June 30, 2012. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, not later than July 31, 2012, plaintiffs shall file (a) a summary of the damages to which they are entitled for the 2009 growing season, and (b) a summary of their e vidence and arguments as to the issue of willfulness, if any, on the part of defendant Slusser. Defendant Slusser shall also file, not later than August 15, 2012, any written response to (a) and (b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' reques t for a permanent injunction is sustained. Defendant Kevin Slusser is not authorized to use any of plaintiffs' patented biotechnology. Defendant Kevin Slusser is permanently enjoined from making, using, saving, cleaning, planting, selling, offer ing to sell, or otherwise transferring any seed containing plaintiffs' proprietary seed technologies, without express permission from plaintiffs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an evidentiary hearing on damages and any other outstanding issues is se t for on Tuesday, September 11, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall mail a certified copy of this order to defendant Kevin Slusser with certification of delivery requested; (COPY BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO: Kevin Slusser, 810 Law 438, Walnut Ridge, AR 72476) . Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 04/11/2012. (DJO)
|
June 17, 2010 |
Filing
33
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of plaintiffs (Doc. 18 ) for sanctions and to compel discovery against defendant Kevin Slusser is sustained in that defendant shall pay to plaintiffs the sum of $1,000 as reasonable fee s and expenses expended in the prosecution of the subject motion. In all other respects the motion is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants obligation to pay plaintiffs reasonable expenses and fees is hereby stayed, subject to future order.. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 6/17/10. (KKS)
|
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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?