OPTOLUM INC. v. CREE INC.
Plaintiff: OPTOLUM INCORPORATED
Defendant: CREE INC
Case Number: 1:2017cv00687
Filed: July 24, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Office: NCMD Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: JOE L. WEBSTER
Presiding Judge: WILLIAM L. OSTEEN
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 271
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 19, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 384 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, (Doc. 368 ), is DENIED. Signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 08/19/2022. (Taylor, Abby)
December 14, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 357 REDACTED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 11/24/2021. Re 343 SEALED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. See 356 Order.(Taylor, Abby)
November 24, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 345 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR. on 11/24/2021. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) Regarding Lack of Willfulness (Doc. 323 ) is GRANTED. (Daniel, J)
September 28, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 230 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 09/28/2020, that Defendant's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 190 ), is GRANTED with respect to Cree's argument that the G en 2.5 bulbs do not infringe and to Cree's argument that the Single Ring bulbs do not literally infringe. Defendant's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 190 ), is DENIED as to the remaining claims. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Motion and Memorandum for Leave to File a Surreply, (Doc. 220 ), is GRANTED. FURTHER that the parties shall file briefs concerning the most appropriate method to address the issue of ensnarement, either in a pre-trial evidentiary hearing or after trial. Parties' briefs shall be no longer than seven (7) pages in length and shall be filed within ten (10) days after the issuance of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.(Taylor, Abby)
July 11, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 178 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 07/11/2019, that Defendant's Motion to Strike, (Doc. 172 ), is DENIED. FURTHER that the parties shall meet and confer and submit to this court an Amended Joint Rule 26(f) Report by July 17, 2019.(Taylor, Abby)
December 28, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 166 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 12/28/2018, that Plaintiff's motion to compel, (Doc. 154 ), is GRANTED. FURTHER that Defendant shall serve Plaintiff with a statement of th e reasonable costs and expenses incurred in restoring the Mimosa System and an invoice payable by Plaintiff for one half of those costs and expenses. Such costs and expenses are not to include either attorney or non-attorney fees associated with an y review of recovered data or costs associated with Defendant's production to Plaintiff of such data. FURTHER that, within ten days of receiving such statement of reasonable costs and expenses, Plaintiff shall file with this court either: (1) a notice - indicating Plaintiff's agreement to pay its share of the costs and expenses, or (2) a memorandum of no more than five pages explaining why Plaintiff contests the reasonableness of the amount. FURTHER that, within five days of filing by Plaintiff of any memorandum contesting the reasonableness of the claimed expenses, Defendant shall file a response of no more than five pages. FURTHER that failure to comply with this Order shall result in the payment of the costs and expenses associated with restoring the Mimosa System by the non- complying party.(Taylor, Abby)
August 22, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 152 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 08/22/2018, as set out herein. (Taylor, Abby)
July 24, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 90 ORDER granting 72 Motion to Amend/Correct. Cree shall file its amended answer within 14 days from the date of this order. Granting 81 Motion for Leave to File Surreply. The Clerk is directed to file the lodged surreply (Doc. 82 ). Cree's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer for Improper Venue (Doc. 73 ) is granted. The Clerk is directed to transfer this action to District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 7/24/17.(DXD)[Transferred from Arizona on 7/24/2017.]
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: OPTOLUM INC. v. CREE INC.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: OPTOLUM INCORPORATED
Represented By: ROBERT A. BROOKS
Represented By: KIA L FREEMAN
Represented By: LEAH R. MCCOY
Represented By: MEAD MISIC
Represented By: HAYDEN J. SILVER, III
Represented By: KEITH TOMS
Represented By: JACOB S. WHARTON
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: CREE INC
Represented By: LYNNE A. BORCHERS
Represented By: BLANEY HARPER
Represented By: PETER D. SIDDOWAY
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?