PRECISION FABRICS GROUP, INC. v. TIETEX INTERNATIONAL, LTD.
PRECISION FABRICS GROUP, INC. |
TIETEX INTERNATIONAL, LTD. |
TIETEX INTERNATIONAL, LTD. |
PRECISION FABRICS GROUP, INC. |
1:2013cv00645 |
August 6, 2013 |
US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
NCMD Office |
Alamance |
L. PATRICK AULD |
THOMAS D. SCHROEDER |
Patent |
35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
Both |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 286 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 11/7/2017; that Tietex's motions to amend its answers and to transfer these actions for improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) (Doc. 211) are GRANTED as follows: 1. Tietex shall file its amended answers in both cases (see Docs. 268-1, 268-2) forthwith. Because the only amendment permitted is Tietex's denial of venue in this district, PFG's prior replies will be deemed responsive to the answers and counterclaims. 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), these actions are TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Spartanburg Division, for further proceedings. Associated Cases: 1:13-cv-00645-TDS-LPA, 1:14-cv-00650-TDS-LPA (Sheets, Jamie) |
Filing 152 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 11/21/2016. For the reasons stated herein, PFG's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 111 in case 1:13cv645, Doc. 81 in case 1:14cv650) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and PFG's motion to exclude expert testimony (Doc. 116 in case 1:13cv645, Doc. 86 in case 1:14cv650) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Associated Cases: 1:13cv645, 1:14cv650 (Engle, Anita) |
Filing 127 MEMORANDUM ORDER Signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 1/14/2016. For the reasons stated herein, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by TIETEX INTERNATIONAL, LTD. ( 93 in 1:13cv645 and 63 in 1:14cv650) is DENIED. Associated Cases: 1:13cv645, 1:14cv650(Engle, Anita) |
Filing 90 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 8/10/2015, that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Docket Entry 60 ) is DENIED IN PART AS MOOT, in that, Plaintiff has shown no entitlement to an order compelling further d iscovery from Defendant. FURTHER that, on or before August 24, 2015, Plaintiff either 1) shall file a Notice with the Court renouncing any expense-shifting; or 2) shall serve Defendant with a statement setting out the reasonable expenses, inc luding attorney's fees, Plaintiff incurred in making the instant Motion. Failure by Plaintiff 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 September 8, 2015, either: 1) a Notice 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 pay 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 contain ed in the statement served upon Defendant, the payment of such expenses by Defendant. FURTHER that, on or before September 29, 2015, 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 October 6, 2015, 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.(Daniel, J) |
Filing 57 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 1/15/2015, that PFG's motion to strike (Doc. 38 ) is DENIED, but the opinion of Dr. Wilkie will not be considered, and the disputed claim term "intumescent" from the '162 and '639 patents is construed to describe "a substance that swells and chars upon exposure to heat or flame." Associated Cases: 1:13-cv-00645-TDS-LPA, 1:14-cv-00650-TDS-LPA(Daniel, J) |
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 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.