Apeldyn Corporation v. Eidos, LLC

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Oregon District Court Apeldyn Corporation v. Eidos, LLC

Apeldyn Corporation v. Eidos, LLC

Plaintiff:	Apeldyn Corporation
Defendant:	Eidos, LLC
Case Number:	3:2012cv00722
Filed:	April 23, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office:	Portland (3) Office
Presiding Judge:	Michael H. Simon
Nature of Suit:	Contract: Other
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
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
April 8, 2013	Filing 106 OPINION and ORDER - Apeldyn's motion for partial summary judgment 62 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Paragraph 11.1 of the Patent Agreement is unambiguous, and the Court finds both that the Patent Agreement expired on April 2 3, 2012, and that under the express terms of the Patent Agreement certain clauses remain in full force and effect even after expiration. Paragraph 11.5 of the Patent Agreement, however, is ambiguous. The Court cannot determine, as a matter of law, th at the expiration of the Patent Agreement extinguished all claims of Eidos against Apeldyn based on litigation that was pending before expiration. Eidos's cross motion for partial summary judgment 86 is DENIED. Apeldyn's Motion to Strike 99 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed on 4/8/2013 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 8, 2013

Filing 106 OPINION and ORDER - Apeldyn's motion for partial summary judgment 62 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Paragraph 11.1 of the Patent Agreement is unambiguous, and the Court finds both that the Patent Agreement expired on April 2 3, 2012, and that under the express terms of the Patent Agreement certain clauses remain in full force and effect even after expiration. Paragraph 11.5 of the Patent Agreement, however, is ambiguous. The Court cannot determine, as a matter of law, th at the expiration of the Patent Agreement extinguished all claims of Eidos against Apeldyn based on litigation that was pending before expiration. Eidos's cross motion for partial summary judgment 86 is DENIED. Apeldyn's Motion to Strike 99 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed on 4/8/2013 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

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: Apeldyn Corporation v. Eidos, LLC
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Apeldyn Corporation
Represented By:	Don Hall Marmaduke
Represented By:	Anna Sortun
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: Eidos, LLC
Represented By:	Frank V. Langfitt
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?