Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation
| Kewazinga Corp. |
| Microsoft Corporation |
| 1:2018cv04500 |
| May 21, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Gregory H. Woods |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
| Plaintiff |
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
332
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 324 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 322 Memorandum & Opinion,, 321 Memorandum & Opinion,, and Clarification. filed by Kewazinga Corp. Defendants motion for reconsideration is DENIED IN PART. The Court will hold oral argument with respect to the issues identified above on September 21, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. The parties are directed to the Courts Emergency Rules in Light of COVID-19, which are available on the Courts website, for the dial-i n number and other relevant instructions. The parties are specifically directed to comply with Rule 2(C) of the Court's Emergency Rules.The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt No. 324. (Oral Argument set for 9/21/2022 at 03:00 PM before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/14/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
316
ORDER: granting in part and denying in part 188 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 204 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 211 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 227 Le tter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 241 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 247 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 264 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 269 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 282 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 299 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 307 Letter Motion to Seal. For the reasons s tated above, the parties have largely satisfied their burdens to demonstrate that the privacy interests and the risk of competitive harm that would result from disclosure outweigh the strong presumption of public access to the documents at issue. How ever, certain proposed redactions are not narrowly tailored to protect those interests. Accordingly, the parties' motions to redact and seal certain documents and exhibits are GRANTED in part, and DENIED as to the proposed redactions specified a bove. The parties are directed to submit revised jointly proposed redactions for those documents involving a third-party confidentiality interest, by no later than April 7, 2021. In light of the examples of inconsistent redactions provided above, the parties are strongly encouraged to review all of their proposed redactions in conjunction with the exhibits they have submitted on the public docket and to ensure the proposed redactions are uniform throughout. Any documents for which the Court has denied the parties' request to redact or seal must be filed on the public docket by no later than April 7, 2021.The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at Dkt. Nos. 188, 204, 211, 227, 241, 247, 264, 269, 282, 299, and 307.SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/31/2021) (ama)
|
|
Filing
126
ORDER terminating 118 Letter Motion to Seal; terminating 119 Letter Motion to Seal. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to unseal the following: Dkt. Nos. 113, 113-1, 113-3, 113-4, 113-5, 113-6, 113-7, 113-8, 113-9, 113-10. Dkt No. 113-2 will remain under seal. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 118 and 119. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/15/2020) (ama) Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
53
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPINION: For the reasons that follow, the Court construes the disputed terms as described above, and as summarized in Attachment A. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/29/2019) (mro)
|
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
| Search for this case: Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Kewazinga Corp. | |
| Represented By: | Ian Gregg DiBernardo |
| Represented By: | Kenneth Lawrence Stein |
| 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: Microsoft Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Andrew Bruce Lachow |
| 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.
