Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials, Inc. et al
| Clayton Corporation |
| Momentive Performance Materials, Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV |
| 4:2012cv01349 |
| July 30, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - County |
| Audrey G. Fleissig |
| Patent |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1126 |
| 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
159
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 129 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall produce the requested information, as set forth above, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. ( Response to Court due by 6/19/2015.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 5/20/2015. (NEB)
|
|
Filing
132
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Compel is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 118.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall produce the requested information within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, subject to any ne cessary amendments to the protective order agreed upon by the parties. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of their motion to compel is DENIED as moot. (Doc. No. 128.) The Court did not rely on Defendants proposed supplemental memorandum in ruling on Defendants motion to compel. ( Response to Court due by 4/28/2015.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 4/21/15. (JWJ)
|
|
Filing
96
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff and Defendants Altachem and Lindall shall confer in good faith, in accordance with Local Rule 37-3.04, to attempt to agree on an amendment to the protective order that addresses all parties concerns. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by August 15, 2014, the parties shall fileeither (1) a Joint Motion for Amendment to the Protective Order, or (2) a Notice advising the Court that the parties wer e unable to reach an agreement regarding an amendment to the protective order, in which case the Court will address Defendants motion for amendment to the protective order (Doc. No. 83). Response to Court due by 8/15/2014. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 7/24/14. (JWJ)
|
|
Filing
62
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants motion for leave to amend their counterclaim by adding a claim for tortious interference with a business relationship is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 51.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Cou rt shall detach the proposed amended counterclaim attached to Defendants motion (Doc. No. 51-1) and file it as the Answer and First Amended Counterclaim herein. re: 51 MOTION for Leave to Amend Counterclaims filed by Lindal North America, Inc., Altachem NV. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 7/15/13. (JWJ)
|
|
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties joint motion for a protective order is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Doc. No. 45) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court approves the parties proposed protective order as set forth in Ex hibit B. (Doc. No. 45-2.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants request for the inclusion of a patent prosecution bar in the protective order is DENIED without prejudice. re: 45 Joint MOTION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiff Clayton Corporation Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 5/14/13. (JWJ)
|
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.
