Landmark Technology A, LLC v. Art of Beauty Company, Inc.
Landmark Technology A, LLC |
Art of Beauty Company, Inc. |
1:2020cv01637 |
July 24, 2020 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
Pamela A Barker |
Patent |
35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on September 18, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 6 Second Unopposed Motion for extension of time until October 19, 2020 to answer filed by Defendant Art of Beauty Company, Inc.. (Cupar, David) |
Order [non-document]granting #6 Defendant's Second Unopposed Motion for extension of time until October 19, 2020 to answer. Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 9/18/2020.(L,Ja) |
Filing 5 Unopposed Motion for extension of time until September 18, 2020 to answer filed by Defendant Art of Beauty Company, Inc.. Related document(s) #1 . (Cupar, David) |
Order [non-document] granting #5 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for extension of time until September 18, 2020 to answer. Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 8/19/2020.(L,Ja) |
Filing 4 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon Art of Beauty Company, Inc. on 7/29/2020 - Received by signature "A Turner RT 14 CV-19", filed on behalf of Landmark Technology A, LLC Related document(s) #3 . (Welling, David) |
Filing 3 Original Summons and Magistrate Consent Form issued to counsel for service upon Art of Beauty Company, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Consent Form) (Y,A) |
Filing 2 Report on the Filing of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark (AO120) filed by Landmark Technology A, LLC. (Welling, David) |
Filing 1 Complaint with jury demand for utility patent infringement against Art of Beauty Company, Inc. Filing fee paid $400, Receipt number AOHNDC-10128528. Filed by Landmark Technology A, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A ('508 patent), #2 Exhibit B ('631 patent), #3 Exhibit C (Lockwood Amendment), #4 Exhibit D (Board of Patent Appeals Decision), #5 Exhibit E (Maitra Declaration), #6 Exhibit F ('508 Re-Exam), #7 Exhibit G (Office Action in Re-Exam), #8 Exhibit H (Art of Beauty - claims chart), #9 Civil Cover Sheet, #10 Summons Art of Beauty Company, Inc. (Welling, David) |
This action has been identified as a Patent Case that is subject to the Local Patent Rules. Link to #Local Patent Rules. (Y,A) |
Judge Pamela A. Barker assigned to case, (Y,A) |
Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker. (Y,A) |
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 Ohio Northern 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: Landmark Technology A, LLC v. Art of Beauty Company, Inc. | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Landmark Technology A, LLC | |
Represented By: | David A. Welling |
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: Art of Beauty Company, Inc. | |
Represented By: | Matthew J. Cavanagh |
Represented By: | David B. Cupar |
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.