Krausz Industries Ltd. v. Smith-Blair, Inc., et al
Plaintiff:
Krausz Industries Ltd.
Defendant:
Smith-Blair, Inc., Sensus USA, Inc. and Sensus Manufacturing Shanghai Ltd.
Case Number:
5:2012cv00570
Filed:
August 20, 2012
Court:
North Carolina Eastern District Court
Office:
Western Division Office
County:
xxOutside U.S.
Presiding Judge:
Louise Wood Flanagan
Nature of Suit:
Patent
Cause of Action:
15:1126
Jury Demanded By:
Plaintiff
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Date Filed | # | Document Text |
|---|---|---|
| June 29, 2017 | 256 |
ORDER granting 237 Motion to Seal; granting 252 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 6/29/2017. (Edwards, S.)
|
| December 13, 2016 | 208 |
ORDER granting 174 Motion to Seal; granting 182 Motion to Seal Document; granting 186 Motion for Leave to File Reply; granting 188 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting 193 Motion to Seal; granting [19 9] Motion to Seal; and denying 203 Motion to Strike -The court will be filing an order resolving the Motion to Compel concurrently with this Order. The court's analysis regarding the resolution of the Motion to Compel relies in part on docum ents filed under seal. As a result, that order will be filed under seal. Within 14 days of the entry of the order, the parties shall review the order and submit a proposed redacted copy of the order to the undersigned's case manager via e-mail. Upon the court's inspection and approval, a redacted copy of sealed order will be made a part of the public record. Failure to submit a proposed redacted order will result in the order being made public in its entirety. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 12/13/2016. (Baker, C.)
|
| July 15, 2016 | 184 |
ORDER granting 163 Motion to Seal - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 7/15/2016. (Tripp, S.)
|
| May 9, 2016 | 154 |
ORDER granting 110 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and granting 125 Motion to Seal 121 PROPOSED SEALED Document - The clerk is DIRECTED to maintain under seal docket entry 121, where that document includes plaintiff's Exhibit D, which must remain under seal. (See DE 121 at 1-9). Plaintiff is DIRECTED to re-file that portion of docket entry 121 no longer under seal (Exhibit I), within 14 days of the date of this order. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 5/9/2016. (Baker, C.)
|
| April 19, 2016 | 153 |
ORDER denying 123 Motion to Strike Defendants' Invalidity Contentions and to Limit Prior Art References and Combinations - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 04/19/2016. (Baker, C.)
|
| August 31, 2015 | 106 |
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 08/31/2015. (Baker, C.)
|
| December 15, 2014 | 91 |
ORDER denying 71 Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants' Opening Claim Construction Brief and granting 74 Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Defendants' Responsive Claim Construction Brief and to Supplement the Record - Plaintiff is directed to file its proposed reply, and defendants are directed to file their proposed surreply, along with any supplemental record materials not yet filed, within 7 days of the date of this order. The parties shall jointly propose to the court, within 14 days of the date of this order, 3 dates for claim construction hearing to take place on or after February 11, 2014. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 12/152014. (Baker, C.)
|
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.
- 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.
