Monsanto Company et al v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. et al
| Monsanto Company and Monsanto Technology LLC |
| Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company |
| 4:2012cv01090 |
| June 18, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - County |
| Carol E. Jackson |
| 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
112
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for a protective order, filed by plaintiffs Monsanto Company and Monsanto Technology LLC [Doc. # 56 ], is granted in part and denied in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motion to determine the sufficiency of responses to requests for admission, filed by defendants E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. [Doc. # 58 ], is denied.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for a hearing [Doc. ## 91 , 100 ] are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall have until April 23, 2014, to submit to plaintiffs revised discovery requests in compliance with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall have until April 23, 2014 to answer the four discovery requests utilizing defendants proposed definition of "Seed Sorting & Selection Technology.". Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 3/24/14. (KKS)
|
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
- 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.
