Unique Product Solutions, Limited v. Hy-Grade Valve, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Northern District Unique Product Solutions, Limited v. Hy-Grade Valve, Inc.

Unique Product Solutions, Limited v. Hy-Grade Valve, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Unique Product Solutions, Limited
Defendant:	Hy-Grade Valve, Inc.
Case Number:	5:2010cv01912
Filed:	August 27, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office:	Akron Office
County:	Summit
Presiding Judge:	Dan Aaron Polster
Nature of Suit:	Patent
Cause of Action:	35 U.S.C. § 183 Patent Infringement
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
March 14, 2011	Filing 21 Memorandum of Opinion and Order granting USA's Motion to intervene as a party, granting Motion for reconsideration Related Doc # 19 , vacating 2/23/11 order 19 , and reaffirming 2/23/11 order granting defendant's Motion to Dismiss 12 . Plaintiff's complaint dismissed with prejudice. Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 3/14/11.(P,R)
February 23, 2011	Filing 18 Memorandum of Opinion and Order . Supra, the qui tam provision of the False Marking Statute 35 U.S.C. Section 292(b) is unconstitutional under the Take Care Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. Art. II, Section 3. According ly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint on the ground that the qui tam provision of 35 Section U.S.C. 292(b) is unconstitutional (Related Doc # 12 ) is hereby granted. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. All other motions are denied as moot. Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 2/23/2011.(W,G) Modified document type on 2/24/2011 (M,TJ).

Date Filed

Document Text

March 14, 2011

Filing 21 Memorandum of Opinion and Order granting USA's Motion to intervene as a party, granting Motion for reconsideration Related Doc # 19 , vacating 2/23/11 order 19 , and reaffirming 2/23/11 order granting defendant's Motion to Dismiss 12 . Plaintiff's complaint dismissed with prejudice. Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 3/14/11.(P,R)

February 23, 2011

Filing 18 Memorandum of Opinion and Order . Supra, the qui tam provision of the False Marking Statute 35 U.S.C. Section 292(b) is unconstitutional under the Take Care Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. Art. II, Section 3. According ly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint on the ground that the qui tam provision of 35 Section U.S.C. 292(b) is unconstitutional (Related Doc # 12 ) is hereby granted. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. All other motions are denied as moot. Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 2/23/2011.(W,G) Modified document type on 2/24/2011 (M,TJ).

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 this case: Unique Product Solutions, Limited v. Hy-Grade Valve, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Unique Product Solutions, Limited
Represented By:	David J. Hrina
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: Hy-Grade Valve, 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?