Genpak, LLC v. Darnel Packaging, Inc.

Plaintiff: Genpak, LLC
Defendant: Darnel Packaging, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2010cv00458
Filed: April 20, 2010
Court: New York Northern District Court
Office: Albany Office
County: Warren
Presiding Judge: Lawrence E. Kahn
Referring Judge: Randolph F. Treece
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
October 4, 2011 23 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Approving the Stipulation of the parties for a discontinuance, all claims and counterclaims asserted are hereby discontinued, with prejudice and without costs to either party as against the other. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 10/4/2011. (jmb)

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 New York Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Genpak, LLC v. Darnel Packaging, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Genpak, LLC
Represented By: Scott A. Barbour
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Darnel Packaging, Inc.
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 [ 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.