DSM Desotech, Inc. et al v. MOMENTIVE SPECIALTY CHEMICALS INC. et al
| DSM Desotech, Inc. and DSM I.P. Assets B.V. |
| MOMENTIVE SPECIALTY CHEMICALS INC. and Momentive UV Coatings (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. |
| 2:2015cv00070 |
| January 8, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Columbus Office |
| FRANKLIN |
| Elizabeth Preston Deavers |
| Michael H. Watson |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
42
ORDER adopting 38 the Report and Recommendation; denying without prejudice 18 Momentive UV Coating's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 23 Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 12/14/15. (jk)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 23 Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery Under Rule 26(d) and to File a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Momentive UV Coatings (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.'s Motion to Dismiss filed by DSM Desotech, Inc., DSM I.P. Assets B.V., 18 and MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Momentive UV Coatings (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; It is RECOMMENDED that Defendant MUV's Motion to Dismiss be DENIED WITH OUT PREJUDICE and that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery be GRANTED. Defendant MUV's 30 Motion to Stay is DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 12/11/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 11/24/15. (sem)
|
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 Southern 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.
