Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. et al
| Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation |
| Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc. |
| 3:2012cv00033 |
| February 1, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| MONTGOMERY |
| Walter H Rice |
| Patent |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 Declaratory Judgement |
| Both |
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
232
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the briefing on Counter Defendants' Bill of Costs is stayed unless and until this Court's Judgment is affirmed by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and mandated back to the District Court. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 9/26/23. (pb)
|
|
Filing
224
DECISION AND ENTRY (1) OVERRULING DEFENDANTS/ COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC., AND CROWN CORK & SEAL, USA., INC.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT REXAM BEVERAGE CAN COMPANY'S INDEFINITENESS DEFENSE REGARDING THE "SECOND POINT" OR "TRANSITION" (DOC. # 195 ); (2) SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT REXAM BEVERAGE CAN COMPANY'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON INDEFINITENESS (DOC. # 196 ); AND (3) OVERRULING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT BALL METAL BEVERA GECONTAINER CORPORATION'S AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT REXAM BEVERAGE CAN COMPANY'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPERT WITNESS ANDREW CARTER (DOC. # 210 ) AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPERT WITNESS EDMUND GILLEST (DOC. # 209 ); JUDGEMENT TO BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY; TERMINATION ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 8/2/2023. (srb)
|
|
Filing
221
DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING, AT THIS TIME, BALL AND REXAM'S JOINT REQUEST FOR A STATUS CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 7/11/2023. (bjr)
|
|
Filing
208
ORDER granting 207 Motion to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 5/16/2023. (srb)
|
|
Filing
181
ENTRY AND ORDER REOPENING THE RECORD FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY ON ISSUE OF WHAT, IF ANY, MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN ANGLE RANGE OUTCOME EXISTS AMONG DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES; PARTIES TO SUBMIT A SCHEDULING ORDER OF DATES TO COMPLETER LIMITED DISCOVERY AND RE=BRIEFING OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,848,875 AND U.S. PATENT NO. 6,935,826 FOR INDEFINITENESS BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2021. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 8/24/2021. (srb)
|
|
Filing
178
ORDER DIRECTING COUNSEL FOR BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORP., REXAM BEVERAGE CAN COMPANY, CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC., AND CROWN CORK & SEAL USA, INC., TO FILE REPLIES TO THE POSITION STATEMENTS (DOC. # 177 ) OF OPPOSING COUNSEL, ADDRESSING (1) THE NEED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE DISCOVERY; (2) WHETHER A HEARING SHOULD BE CONDUCTED AND, IF SO, THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME NEEDED; AND (3) WHY A FULL TRIAL DOES OR DOES NOT EXCEED THE SCOPE OF THE COURT'S REMAND; REPLIES TO BE BY SIMULTANEOUS SUBMISSION ON APRIL 21, 2021, NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 4/9/2021. (srb)
|
|
Filing
152
ORDER - Upon the motion of Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc. (collectively, "Crown"), for good cause shown, Crown is hereby granted leave to file their Reply Memorandum in Support of their Motion in Li mine, and supporting exhibits, under seal. It is understood that Crown will also file a redacted version of its memorandum with the Court's eFiling system. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 4/29/2019. (srb)
|
|
Filing
140
ORDER - Upon the motion of Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc. (collectively, "Crown"), for good cause shown, Crown is hereby granted leave to file its Memorandum in Opposition to the Motions in Limine of Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. and Rexam Beverage Can Company, and supporting exhibits, under seal. It is understood that Crown will also file a redacted version of its memorandum with the Court's eFiling system. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 4/11/2019. (srb)
|
|
Filing
135
ORDER - Ball and Rexam are hereby granted leave to file under seal unredacted versions of their Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion in Limine No. 7 Regarding Crown's Belatedly Disclosed Expert Yaguchi and of exhibits to such that contain Protected Materials. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 4/4/2019. (srb)
|
|
Filing
131
ORDER: Upon the motion of Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc. (collectively, "Crown"), for good cause shown, Crown is hereby granted leave to file its Memorandum in Opposition to Ball Metal Beverage Container Co rp. 's and Rexam Beverage Can Company's Motion in Limine No. 7 to Preclude Crown's Expert Taro Yaguchi from Testifying at Trial, and supporting exhibits, under seal. It is understood that Crown will also file a redacted version of its memorandum with the Court's eFiling system.re 130 . Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 4/2/19. (kma)
|
|
Filing
106
ORDER - Upon the motion of Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. and Rexam Beverage Can Company, for good cause shown and pursuant to the Protective Order in this case (Dkt. 15) and Local Rule 5.2.l(a), Ball and Rexam are hereby granted leave to file under seal unredacted versions of their Reply Memoranda in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment on Infringement (Doc. 84 ) and Validity (Doc. 85 ) and of exhibits to such Reply Memoranda that contain Protected Materials. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 1/15/2019. (srb)
|
|
Filing
101
ORDER granting 100 Motion to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 1/8/19. (kma)
|
|
Filing
91
ORDER - Upon the motion of Defendant, for good cause shown, Defendant is hereby granted leave to file documents under seal in connection with Defendants' Responses to Ball and Rexam' s Motions for Summary Judgment filed on December 7, 2018. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 12/20/2018. (srb)
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER OF RECUSAL. Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz recused. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman for all further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 9/20/17. (kma)
|
|
Filing
51
DECISION CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF PATENTS IN SUIT; CONFERENCE CALL TO BE SET IN SEPARATE ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 12/28/2015. (jdf)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO FILE, ON JANUARY 13, 2014, SIMULTANEOUS MEMORANDA TO ADDRESS WHETHER ISSUE PRECLUSION APPLIES TO THE CURRENTLY DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS THAT THE COURT ALREADY CONSTRUED IN ITS PREVIOUS MARKMAN RULING; SIMULTANEOUS RESPONSIVE MEMORANDA DUE TEN (10) DAYS THEREAFTER; NO REPLY MEMORANDA SHALL BE FILED. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 12/20/2013. (jdf1)
|
|
Filing
35
ENTRY SETTING MARKMAN HEARING; DATE SET FOR SUBMISSION OF AGREED UPON SCHEDULING ORDER FOR MATTERS OTHER THAN MARKMAN HEARING. Pursuant to discussions had at the aforementioned scheduling conference, the Markman Hearing is set for 9:00a.m. on Tuesday, October 22, 2013. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 09/18/13. (pb1)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER AMENDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 4/12/13. (kje1)
|
|
Filing
15
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 05/14/12. (pb1)
|
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.
