Sudden Valley Supply LLC v. Ziegmann
Plaintiff: Sudden Valley Supply LLC
Defendant: Neil P. Ziegmann
Case Number: 4:2013cv00053
Filed: January 10, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: St. Louis Office
County: Warren
Presiding Judge: Jean C. Hamilton
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS 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
June 13, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 230 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Verified Motion of Sudden Valley Supply, LLC for Attorneys' Fees Against Neil P. Ziegmann and N.P.Z., Inc. (ECF No. 200 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sudden Valley Supply, LLC 9;s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law that Claims 1-19 of the '642 Patent are Invalid (ECF No. 202 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that N.P.Z., Inc. and Neil P. Ziegmann's Motion for a New Trial and Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (ECF No. 213 ) is DENIED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Motion by Ziegmann and NPZ re DX PPP-1 (ECF No. 218 ) is GRANTED. NPZ shall file the complete copy of United States Patent Application No. 12/881,241 as DX PPP-1 and the Cle rk shall amend the Clerk's List of Trial Exhibits to reflect that the complete copy of United States Patent Application No. 12/881,241 was admitted by the Court as DX PPP-1. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on June 13, 2016. (BRP)
June 11, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 132 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Neil P. Ziegmann and N.P.Z., Inc. 's Renewed Motion for an Order Establishing the Order of Proof at Trial (ECF No. 97 ) is GRANTED. The order of proof will proc eed as follows: (1) Ziegmann and NPZ will first present their case on infringement; (2) SVS will then put on its defense of the infringement claim and will then go first on its claim of invalidity; (3) Next, Ziegmann and NPZ will put on any rebuttal in support of their infringement claim (if necessary), and will put on their defense of the invalidity claim; (4) Finally (if necessary), SVS will put on any rebuttal with respect to its invalidity claim. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on June 11, 2015. (BRP)
March 9, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 116 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Sudden Valley Supply LLC's (SVS) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (ECF No. 85) is DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part. The Court holds that Claims 6 and 18-19 are not infrin ged as a matter of law. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Neil P. Ziegmann and N.P.Z., Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 88) is DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part. The Court enters summary judgment in favor of Neil P. Ziegmann and N.P.Z., Inc. on Sudden Valley's assertion the '642 Patent's claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, if2, now 35 U.S.C. §112(b). The Court also enters judgment in favor of Neil P. Ziegmann and N.P.Z ., Inc. as to Sudden Valley's defense of unclean hands. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Neil P. Ziegmann and N.P.Z., Inc.'s Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of David C. Hastings (ECF No. 90) is DENIED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defe ndant/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Neil P. Ziegmann and N.P.Z., Inc.'s Motion for an Order Establishing the Order of Proof at Trial (ECF No. 97) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will address this issue, if necessary, once SVS's trial counsel is determined. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 3/9/15. (JWJ)
October 30, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 112 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Notice of Withdrawal [ECF No. 106 ] is DENIED, without prejudice. Jury Trial set for 4/6/2015 09:00 AM in Courtroom 12S before District Judge Ronnie L. White. Motion in Limine due by 3/27/2014. Pretrial Compliance due by 3/17/2015. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on October 30, 2014. (BRP)
March 7, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 65 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 8,230,642 will be construed as set forth in this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 03/07/2014. (CLK)
May 14, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 26 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 22 11 13 : ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (ECF No. 11) is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Transfer of Venue to theNorth ern District of Iowa (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 Scheduling Conference and 26(f) Conference of the Parties (ECF No. 22) is DENIED as moot.. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 5/14/13. (CEL)
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

Search for this case: Sudden Valley Supply LLC v. Ziegmann
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sudden Valley Supply LLC
Represented By: Matthew A. Braunel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Neil P. Ziegmann
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?