Voice Tech Corporation v. Mycroft AI Inc.
Plaintiff: Voice Tech Corporation
Defendant: Mycroft AI Inc.
Case Number: 4:2020cv00111
Filed: February 18, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Presiding Judge: Roseann Ketchmark
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 14, 2020 Filing 22 Minute Entry. Oral argument held on 4/14/2020 by telephone before District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. Counsel appearing for Plaintiff: Eric Adams, Todd Tumey, David Wooten, Uwaoma-Silachi Nwogwugwu, Stacey Gilman, and Mo Kahn. Counsel appearing for Defendant: Christopher DeBacker, Hissan Anis, and A. Justin Poplin. Plaintiff's #14 motion to require decorus and civil conduct by the parties ruled as stated on the record. Time in court: 3:03 to 3:32. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Jean Crawford, 816-512-5642, jean_crawford@mow.uscourts.gov. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Phillips, Caleb)
April 13, 2020 Filing 21 SUPPLEMENT . (Attachments: #1 Declaration of David K. Wooten)(Related document(s) #14 ) (Gilman, Stacey)
April 13, 2020 Filing 20 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re #14 MOTION for order to Require Decorous and Civil Conduct by the Parties filed by Christopher M. DeBacker on behalf of Defendant Mycroft AI Inc.. Reply suggestions due by 4/27/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Joshua Montgomery, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5)(Related document(s) #14 ) (DeBacker, Christopher)
April 7, 2020 Filing 19 NOTICE of appearance by Hissan Anis on behalf of Mycroft AI Inc. (Attorney Hissan Anis added to party Mycroft AI Inc.(pty:dft))(Anis, Hissan)
April 7, 2020 Filing 18 NOTICE of appearance by Allen Justin Poplin on behalf of Mycroft AI Inc. (Attorney Allen Justin Poplin added to party Mycroft AI Inc.(pty:dft))(Poplin, Allen)
April 7, 2020 Filing 17 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re #11 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Stacey R. Gilman on behalf of Plaintiff Voice Tech Corporation. Reply suggestions due by 4/21/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) #11 ) (Gilman, Stacey)
April 7, 2020 Filing 16 NOTICE OF HEARING - This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Oral argument on Plaintiff's #14 motion to require decorus and civil conduct set for 4/14/2020 03:00 PM in Chambers by telephone before District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Phillips, Caleb)
April 2, 2020 Filing 15 SUGGESTIONS in support re #14 MOTION for order to Require Decorous and Civil Conduct by the Parties filed by Stacey R. Gilman on behalf of Plaintiff Voice Tech Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Tod T. Tumey, #2 Declaration of Marisa Robinson, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Exhibit 3, #6 Exhibit 4, #7 Exhibit 5, #8 Exhibit 6, #9 Exhibit 7, #10 Exhibit 8, #11 Exhibit 9, #12 Exhibit 10, #13 Exhibit 11, #14 Exhibit 12, #15 Exhibit 13, #16 Exhibit 14, #17 Exhibit 15, #18 Exhibit 16, #19 Exhibit 17, #20 Exhibit 18, #21 Exhibit 19, #22 Exhibit 20, #23 Exhibit 21, #24 Exhibit 22, #25 Exhibit 23, #26 Exhibit 24, #27 Exhibit 25, #28 Exhibit 26, #29 Exhibit 27, #30 Exhibit 28, #31 Exhibit 29, #32 Exhibit 30, #33 Exhibit 31, #34 Exhibit 32, #35 Exhibit 33, #36 Exhibit 34, #37 Exhibit 35, #38 Exhibit 36, #39 Exhibit 37, #40 Exhibit 38, #41 Exhibit 39, #42 Exhibit 40, #43 Exhibit 41, #44 Exhibit 42, #45 Exhibit 43, #46 Exhibit 44, #47 Exhibit 45, #48 Exhibit 46, #49 Exhibit 47, #50 Exhibit 48, #51 Exhibit 49, #52 Exhibit 50, #53 Exhibit 51, #54 Exhibit 52, #55 Exhibit 53, #56 Exhibit 54, #57 Exhibit 55, #58 Exhibit 56, #59 Exhibit 57, #60 Exhibit 58, #61 Exhibit 59, #62 Exhibit 60, #63 Exhibit 61, #64 Exhibit 62, #65 Exhibit 63, #66 Exhibit 64, #67 Exhibit 65, #68 Exhibit 66, #69 Exhibit 67, #70 Exhibit 68, #71 Exhibit 69, #72 Exhibit 70, #73 Exhibit 71, #74 Exhibit 72, #75 Exhibit 73, #76 Exhibit 74, #77 Exhibit 75, #78 Exhibit 76, #79 Exhibit 77, #80 Exhibit 78, #81 Exhibit 79, #82 Exhibit 80, #83 Exhibit 81, #84 Exhibit 82, #85 Exhibit 83, #86 Exhibit 84, #87 Exhibit 85, #88 Exhibit 86, #89 Exhibit 87, #90 Exhibit 88, #91 Exhibit 89, #92 Exhibit 90, #93 Exhibit 91, #94 Exhibit 92, #95 Exhibit 93, #96 Exhibit 94, #97 Exhibit 95, #98 Exhibit 96, #99 Exhibit 97)(Related document(s) #14 ) (Gilman, Stacey)
April 2, 2020 Filing 14 MOTION for order to Require Decorous and Civil Conduct by the Parties filed by Stacey R. Gilman on behalf of Voice Tech Corporation. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/16/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Gilman, Stacey)
April 1, 2020 NOTICE of filing: Mediation and Assessment Program Reminder: Your Designation of Mediator is due soon (filed as an ADR event in CM/ECF). See Notice of Inclusion and MAP General Order for specifics. (ADI, MAP)
March 26, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 13 RULE 16 NOTICE. Rule 26 conference due by 4/25/2020. Proposed scheduling order due by 5/9/2020. Signed on March 26, 2020 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Wheeler, LaTandra)
March 24, 2020 Filing 12 SUGGESTIONS in support re #11 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Christopher M. DeBacker on behalf of Defendant Mycroft AI Inc.. (Related document(s) #11 ) (DeBacker, Christopher)
March 24, 2020 Filing 11 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Christopher M. DeBacker on behalf of Mycroft AI Inc.. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/7/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attorney Christopher M. DeBacker added to party Mycroft AI Inc.(pty:dft))(DeBacker, Christopher)
March 11, 2020 Filing 10 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Voice Tech Corporation. Mycroft AI Inc. served on 3/10/2020, answer due 3/31/2020. (Gilman, Stacey)
March 10, 2020 Filing 9 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Mycroft AI Inc. filed by Stacey R. Gilman on behalf of Voice Tech Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5)(Gilman, Stacey)
February 25, 2020 Filing 8 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Voice Tech Corporation. Mycroft AI Inc. served on 2/19/2020, answer due 3/11/2020. (Gilman, Stacey)
February 19, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER granting #2 & #3 motions to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorneys Tod T. Tumey and Eric M. Adams for Voice Tech Corporation allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney. Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a WDMO e-filing account for NextGen CM/ECF. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Register for a WDMO e-filing account at #PACER. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Geiser, Angel)
February 19, 2020 Filing 6 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE INTERESTS filed by Stacey R. Gilman on behalf of Plaintiff Voice Tech Corporation.(Gilman, Stacey)
February 19, 2020 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Mycroft AI Inc.. (Kern, Kendra)
February 19, 2020 Filing 5 Report on the filing of an action regarding patent number(s) 9,794,348; 10,491,679. Plaintiff(s): Voice Tech Corporation Lead Attorney for Plaintiff(s): Stacey R. Gilman Defendant(s): Mycroft Tech Corporation The civil complaint is attached. (Kern, Kendra)
February 19, 2020 Filing 4 NOTICE OF INCLUSION FOR MEDIATION AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (MAP). REVIEW NOTICE AND MAP GENERAL ORDER CAREFULLY FOR IMPORTANT CHANGES, DEADLINES AND REQUIREMENTS.Notice of MAP assignment to an outside mediator. (Attachments: #1 MAP General Order)(Kern, Kendra)
February 18, 2020 Filing 3 Motion to allow Eric M. Adams to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-6731906) filed by Stacey R. Gilman on behalf of Voice Tech Corporation. (Gilman, Stacey)
February 18, 2020 Filing 2 Motion to allow Tod T. Tumey to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-6731880) filed by Stacey R. Gilman on behalf of Voice Tech Corporation. (Gilman, Stacey)
February 18, 2020 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Mycroft AI Inc. filed by Stacey R. Gilman on behalf of Voice Tech Corporation. Filing fee $400, receipt number AMOWDC-6731744. Service due by 5/18/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Civil Cover Sheet, #6 Exhibit Form AO 120)(Gilman, Stacey)

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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Voice Tech Corporation v. Mycroft AI Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mycroft AI Inc.
Represented By: Allen Justin Poplin
Represented By: Christopher M. DeBacker
Represented By: Hissan Anis
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 ]
Plaintiff: Voice Tech Corporation
Represented By: Stacey R. Gilman
Represented By: Eric Michael Adams
Represented By: Tod T. Tumey
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?