TRUEPOSITION, INC. v. LM ERICSSON TELEPHONE COMPANY et al
| TRUEPOSITION, INC. |
| LM ERICSSON TELEPHONE COMPANY, QUALCOMM INC., ALCATEL-LUCENT, S.A., THIRD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT and EUROPEAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS INSTITUTE |
| 2:2011cv04574 |
| July 20, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Chester |
| ROBERT F. KELLY |
| Other Statutes: Anti-Trust |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1 Antitrust Litigation |
| None |
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
210
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF TRUEPOSITION, INC'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADING CONCERNING THE COUNTERCLAIMS AND CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT THIRD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT 186 , AND THE RESPONSE AND REPLY THERETO, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS GRANTED. DEFENDANT THIRD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT'S COUNTERCLAIM COUNTS I, II, III, IV ARE DISMISSED; COUNTERCLAIM COUNTS I, III, AND IV, ARE STRICKEN AS REDUNDANT AND LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; AND THE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS DENIED AS FUTILE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 10/9/13. 10/9/13 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )
|
|
Filing
146
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF TRUEPOSITION, INC.'S AMENDED COMPLAINT BY THIRD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT A/K/A 3GPP 131 , THE RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION BY TRUEPOSITION, INC., AND 3GPP'S REPLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 10/4/12. 10/4/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )
|
|
Filing
143
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT MOTION OF DEFENDANTS QUALCOMM, INC., LM ERICSSON TELEPHONE COMPANY AND ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC. FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR RECONSIDERATION 139 , AND THE RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION BY PLAINTIFF, TRUEPOSITION, INC., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 9/14/12. 9/14/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )
|
|
Filing
133
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT OF TRUEPOSITION, INC. FILED BY ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INS., ERICSSON TELEPHONE COMPANY, AND QUALCOMM INC. 103 , THE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT OF TRUEPOSITION FILED BY ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., THE RESPONSE AND REPLIES THERETO, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 8/21/12. 8/21/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )
|
|
Filing
101
ORDER THAT THE MOTION 89 , IS DENIED; ETSI'S REQUEST FOR AN ORAL ARGUMENT IS DENIED; AND THE JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY BETWEEN TRUEPOSITION AND ETSI SHALL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 3/6/12. 3/6/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )
|
|
Filing
87
ORDER THAT ERICSSON'S MOTION TO DISMISS 65 , IS GRANTED; QUALCOMM'S MOTION TO DISMISS 51 , IS GRANTED; ALU'S MOTION TO DISMISS 66 , IS GRANTED; ETSI'S MOTION TO DISMISS 64 , IS GRANTED; HOWEVER, WE GRANT TRUEPOSITION LEAVE TO TAKE DISCOVERY TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS COURT HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER ETSI. WE GRANT TRUEPOSITION LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT CONSISTENT WITH OUR MEMORANDUM OPINION WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THIS ORDER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 1/6/12. 1/6/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )
|
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 Pennsylvania Eastern 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.
