ATI INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION, INC. v. APPLIED ROBOTICS, INC.
Plaintiff: ATI INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION, INC.
Defendant: APPLIED ROBOTICS, INC.
Case Number: 1:2009cv00471
Filed: June 29, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Office: NCMD Office
County: Lee
Presiding Judge:
Presiding Judge: WALLACE W. DIXON
Presiding Judge: UNASSIGNED
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1126 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS 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
July 25, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 170 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 07/25/2014; that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Docket Entry 158 ) is GRANTED, in that, on or before August 1, 2014, Defendant shall supplement its answers to Plaintiff 's interrogatories numbered 22 through 24 and shall amend its answers to Plaintiff's requests for admission numbered eight through twelve. FURTHER that, on or before August 1, 2014, Plaintiff either 1) shall file a N otice with the Court renouncing any expense-shifting; or 2) shall serve Defendant with a statement setting out the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, Plaintiff incurred in making the instant Motion. Failure by Plainti ff to comply with this Order will result in denial of any expense-shifting. FURTHER that, if Plaintiff timely serves such a statement of reasonable expenses, Defendant shall file, on or before August 15, 2014, either: 1) a Not ice indicating its and/or its counsel's agreement to pay the claimed expenses; or 2) a Memorandum of no more than ten pages setting out Defendant's argument as to why the Court should not require Defendant and/or its counsel to pa y such expenses (including any argument challenging the reasonableness of such expenses), along with a certification that, since the date of this Order, Defendant has attempted to confer in good faith with Plaintiff about resolution of the issue of expense-shifting. Failure by Defendant to comply with this Order will result in the Court ordering, upon the filing of a Notice by Plaintiff of its reasonable expenses as contained in the statement served upon Defendant, the payment of such expe nses by Defendant. FURTHER that, on or before August 22, 2014, Plaintiff shall file a Response of no more than ten pages to any Memorandum timely filed by Defendant. Failure by Plaintiff to comply with this Order will result in denial of any expense-shifting. FURTHER that, on or before August 27, 2014, Defendant may file a Reply of no more than five pages to any Response timely filed by Plaintiff. FURTHER that, upon completion of the foregoing briefing or the time for such briefing, the Clerk shall refer this matter back to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for further action. (Garland, Leah)
June 11, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 164 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 6/11/2014; that Defendant's Motion to Seal Document (Docket Entry 128 ) is GRANTED. FURTHER that the unredacted copy of the Document shall remain under seal. (Sheets, Jamie)
April 14, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 153 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 4/14/2014; that Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend its Amended Complaint (Docket Entry 118 ) is GRANTED. FURTHER that, on or before April 21, 2014, Plaintiff shall file its proposed Amended Complaint (Docket Entry 118 -1) as a Second Amended Complaint. (Sheets, Jamie)
December 4, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 111 MEMORANDUM ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 12/4/2013; Defendant's Motion to Amend [Doc. # 101 ] is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims and Strike Affirmative Defenses [Doc. # 93 ] is DENIED as moot. Given the scheduling changes that will arise out of allowing Defendant's amendment, this case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to allow the parties to amend the scheduling order. (Sheets, Jamie)
March 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 85 MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 3/19/2013, since an exercise of general personal jurisdiction is warranted and reasonable, and since venue is proper in the Middle District of North Carolina, AR's motion [Doc. # 24 ] is DENIED on all counts. (Butler, Carol)
July 12, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 84 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 7/12/11, that the parties' Joint Motion for Impoundment (Docket Entry 48 ) is GRANTED. FURTHER that the parties may file redacted copies of Exhibits 4, 28-29, 34, and 38-40 to the Annis Deposition, Exhibits E-N, U-V and X to the Boardman Affidavit, and the Boardman Affidavit on the docket and that unredacted copies of those documents shall remain under seal. (Law, Trina)
May 11, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 46 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 5/11/2011, that ATI's Motion for Impoundment (Docket Entry 41 ) is denied without prejudice to the parties filing a Joint Renewed Motion for Impoundment that addresses t he matters discussed in this Memorandum Opinion and Order for each document identified in the motion as requiring sealing. Further, that, if the parties fail to file such a Renewed Motion for Impoundment by June 1, 2011, ATI shall publicly file unredacted copies of the documents identified in its Motion for Impoundment (Docket Entry 41 ).(Daniel, J)
December 29, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 35 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 12/29/2010, that ATI's request for jurisdictional discovery (Docket Entry 29 at 17-18) is GRANTED and further action on ARI's Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, to Tran sfer (Docket Entry 24 ) is DEFERRED. FURTHER, that the following deadlines will apply: 1) the parties shall complete jurisdictional discovery on or before March 4, 2011; 2) on or before March 18, 2011, ATI may file a brief of no more than ten (10) p ages supplementing its Response (Docket Entry 29 ), regarding matters identified during such discovery; and 3) on or before March 25, 2011, ATI may file a brief of no more than five (5) pages supplementing its Reply (Docket Entry 30 ), regarding matters raised in ATI's supplemental brief. (Daniel, J)
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 North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: ATI INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION, INC. v. APPLIED ROBOTICS, INC.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: ATI INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION, INC.
Represented By: ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER
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: APPLIED ROBOTICS, 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 [ 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.

Why Is My Information Online?