Serby v. First Alert, Inc. et al
| Victor M. Serby |
| First Alert, Inc. and BRK Brands, Inc. |
| 1:2009cv04229 |
| October 1, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Kings |
| Andrew L. Carter |
| Roslynn R. Mauskopf |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| None |
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
101
ORDER: The Court finds no liability on the part of Defendants for any of Plaintiff's causes of action as Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court also dismisses all of Defendants' counterclaims as Defendants have failed to meet their burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the case. Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 9/28/2015. (Brucella, Michelle)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER: Plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Dr. Reddy, Dkt. 86 , is DENIED. Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 7/22/2015. (Brucella, Michelle)
|
|
Filing
72
DECISION AND ORDER: Defendants' motion for summary judgment based oninvalidity is DENIED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on literal noninfringement is DENIED with respect to Claims 1 and 5 of the '434 Patent. Defendants& #039; motion for summary judgment based on literal non-infringement is GRANTED with respect to Claims 6 and 10 of the '434 Patent. Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of equivalents is DENIED with respect to Claims 6 and 10 of the '434 Patent. Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 3/3/2015. (Brucella, Michelle)
|
|
Filing
46
DECISION AND ORDER: The Court finds that Defendants' affirmative defenses and counterclaims are not barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or contractual estoppel. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and to strike Defendants' affirmative defenses and counterclaims is therefore DENIED in its entirety. Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 3/27/2013. (Brucella, Michelle)
|
|
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion for Summary Judgment: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, defendants motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 22) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. This matter is recommitted to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all remaining pre-trial issues, to supervise the preparation of a Joint Pre-Trial Order, and for any settlement discussions. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 9/26/2011. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)
|
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 New York 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.
