Crimson Trace Corporation, Inc. v. Lasermax, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Oregon District Court Crimson Trace Corporation, Inc. v. Lasermax, Inc.

Crimson Trace Corporation, Inc. v. Lasermax, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Crimson Trace Corporation, Inc.
Defendant:	Lasermax, Inc.
Case Number:	3:2009cv00057
Filed:	January 14, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office:	Patent Office
County:	Washington
Presiding Judge:	Janice M. Stewart
Nature of Suit:	Plaintiff
Cause of Action:	Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:	35:271 Patent Infringement

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 2, 2010	Filing 58 Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Partial Motion to Dismiss 25 is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-reply 40 is granted in part. Plaintiff' s Amended Complaint must be filed by March 15, 2010. Defendant's Cross Motion for Attorney Fees and For Leave to File an Amended Answer 27 is granted in part and denied in part. The Amended Answer must be filed by March 29, 2010. The Motion t o Quash filed by plaintiff's law firm 36 is granted. Plaintiff's request for a status conference 41 is granted in part. Counsel are ordered to confer and establish a proposed final schedule for completing discovery, briefing and argui ng all matters, lodging a Pretrial Order, and conducting a trial. Counsel shall file a Joint Status Report reflecting their proposals by April 16, 2010. A status conference will be scheduled after that date. (See Order) Signed on 3/2/10 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (jlr)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 2, 2010

Filing 58 Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Partial Motion to Dismiss 25 is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-reply 40 is granted in part. Plaintiff' s Amended Complaint must be filed by March 15, 2010. Defendant's Cross Motion for Attorney Fees and For Leave to File an Amended Answer 27 is granted in part and denied in part. The Amended Answer must be filed by March 29, 2010. The Motion t o Quash filed by plaintiff's law firm 36 is granted. Plaintiff's request for a status conference 41 is granted in part. Counsel are ordered to confer and establish a proposed final schedule for completing discovery, briefing and argui ng all matters, lodging a Pretrial Order, and conducting a trial. Counsel shall file a Joint Status Report reflecting their proposals by April 16, 2010. A status conference will be scheduled after that date. (See Order) Signed on 3/2/10 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (jlr)

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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Crimson Trace Corporation, Inc. v. Lasermax, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Crimson Trace Corporation, Inc.
Represented By:	John F. McGrory, Jr.
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: Lasermax, 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?