Olaf Soot Design, LLC v. Daktronics, Inc., et al
| Olaf Soot Design, LLC |
| Daktronics, Inc. and Daktronics Hoist, Inc. |
| 1:2015cv05024 |
| June 26, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Robert W. Sweet |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| Both |
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
448
ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to close the open motion at ECF No. 96. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 5/16/2023) (ama)
|
|
Filing
447
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER re: 427 Bill of Costs Notice of Taxation,, filed by Daktronics, Inc.. Defendants' motion for costs is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants' request for the following costs are DENIED: i. Dep osition transcript costs ii. Dr. Garris' trial subsistence costs iii. Exemplification and copies costs. Defendants' request for the following costs are GRANTED: 1. Dr. Garris' deposition attendance costs of $40.00 ii. Dr. Garris& #039; trial attendance costs of $80.00 iii. Dr. Garris' trial and deposition travel costs of $815.10 iv. Dr. Garris' deposition subsistence costs of $313.00 v. Subpoena costs of $390.00 vi. Original trial transcripts costs of $3,878.55. Thus, Defendants are awarded $5,516.65 in total. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 8/17/2022) (kv) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
|
|
Filing
441
ORDER: closed as moot 432 Motion re: 432 MOTION for Review of Clerk's Decision Regarding Defendants' Bill of Costs re: 431 Taxation of Costs. On June 28, 2021, Defendants filed a "Notice of Motion for Review of Clerk' s Decision Regarding Defendants' Bill of Costs" (ECF No. 432), and requested that the Court "allow Defendants to file an amended Bill of Costs and Declaration." On February 17, 2022, Magistrate Judge Wang directed (ECF No. 437) Defendants to file an amended Bill of Costs by March 4, 2022, and Plaintiff to file any objections by March 18, 2022. In accordance with that order, Defendants submitted an amended Bill of Costs (ECF No. 438), and Plaintiff filed objections (ECF No . 440). Defendants' amended Bill of Costs and Plaintiff's objections are presently under review by Magistrate Judge Wang. The Clerk's Office is therefore ordered to close, as moot, the motion at ECF No. 432. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 3/31/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
437
ORDER: Accordingly, Defendants are directed to file an amended Bill of Costs by March 4, 2022, that, at a minimum, addresses Plaintiff's objections in ECF 430. Separately, the Court has very cursorily reviewed ECF 434 and adds the additional requirements, some of which may overlap with Plaintiff's objections: and further set forth in this Order. This list is not meant to be exhaustive and should not be used as a substitute for counsel's own careful review of the invoices a s they draft a new declaration and Bill of Costs. Plaintiff's objections, if any, are due by March 18, 2022. Failure to timely submit an amended Bill of Costs may result in a recommendation of summary denial of the same. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 2/17/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
312
OPINION: The Court's holding in the Summary Judgment Opinion is clear: the "base member," the "first means," and the "elongated screw" elements are not literally infringed by the Vortek product, but a reasonable jur y could nonetheless find infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. See Summary Judgment Opinion at 33 ("Summary Judgment is denied because a reasonable factfinder could find infringement for each term") The language Plaintiffs invoke to argue otherwise, while inartful, conflicts both with the Summary Judgment Opinion's holding as well as this the Court's clarification of the same in its reconsideration opinion. See ECF Nos. 72 and 82. It therefore has no effect on the "law of the case." The issues to be determined at trial, then, include whether each of these terms (base member, first means, and elongated screw) is infringed upon under the doctrine of equivalents. Parties shall incorporate the above clarification into their presentment of the issues at trial. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 12/10/2018) (js)
|
|
Filing
309
OPINION. For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is granted. Clarification having been provided with respect to parties' Joint Pre-trial Order, parties' final order shall conform with the guidance provided herein. ECF No. 197. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 12/7/2018) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
304
OPINION: For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motions in limine are granted in part and denied in part. Likewise, Plaintiff's motions in limine are granted in part and denied in part. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 12/4/2018) (jca)
|
|
Filing
292
OPINION re: 261 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 258 Memorandum & Opinion,, Grant of Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement filed by Olaf Soot Design, LLC. Based on the conclusions set forth above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 11/27/2018) (mro)
|
|
Filing
258
OPINION: re: 200 MOTION for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement filed by Daktronics, Inc., Daktronics Hoist, Inc., 223 CROSS MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to 28 USC 1927 filed by Daktronics, Inc., Daktronics Hoist, Inc., 198 MOTION Relief Under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 37 filed by Olaf Soot Design, LLC. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff's motion for Rule 37 sanctions is denied. Defendants' cross-motion for sanctions under Section 1927 is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/17/2018) (ama)
|
|
Filing
176
OPINION re: 147 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint Pursuant to FRCP Rule 15 filed by Olaf Soot Design, LLC. Plaintiff's motion to amend its Complaint is granted. The parties will meet and confer with respect to any additional discovery necessary to the issue of willful infringement and theschedule for any further motions, including the presently scheduled motions in limine, and for trial. Any unresolved issues will be the subject of the pretrial conference scheduled for October 31, 2017, at noon, or at such adjourned date as the parties may agree upon. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/26/2017) (anc)
|
|
Filing
137
OPINION re: 74 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 72 Memorandum & Opinion, (Denial of Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement) filed by Daktronics, Inc., Daktronics Hoist, Inc. : Defendants Daktronics, Inc. and Daktronics Hoist, I nc. ("Daktronics" or the "Defendants") have moved for reconsideration of this Court's October 26, 2016 decision to deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment on non-infringement regarding Defendants' Vortek winch and Plaintiff Olaf Soot Design, LLC's ("Olaf Soot" or the "Plaintiff") U.S. Patent No. 6,520,485 ("the '485 Patent"). For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for reconsideration is denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/17/2017) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
72
OPINION. Based on the conclusions set forth above and the claim constructions determined by the Court, the motion for summary judgment on non-infringement is denied. It is so ordered. re: 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement filed by Daktronics, Inc., Daktronics Hoist, Inc. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/26/2016) (rjm)
|
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 Southern 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.
