EYENAVISION, INC. v. ENCHROMA, INC.
Plaintiff: EYENAVISION, INC.
Defendant: ENCHROMA, INC.
Case Number: 2:2021cv00246
Filed: February 19, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Presiding Judge: Robert J Colville
Referring Judge: Arthur J Schwab
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 145
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
March 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by EYENAVISION, INC.. ENCHROMA, INC. waiver sent on 2/22/2021, answer due 4/23/2021. (Devine, Bryan)
February 25, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Bryan C. Devine on behalf of EYENAVISION, INC.. (Devine, Bryan)
February 24, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 8 PATENT/TRADEMARK DOCUMENTS ISSUED. (sdp)
February 24, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 7 AT&T SCHEDULING NOTICE FOR ALL TELEPHONIC CONFERENCES. Every Telephonic Conference conducted will be via an AT&T call-in number which requires participants to dial-in and provide an access code. When a Telephonic Conference is scheduled you will be instructed to refer back to this. This document has a security setting of "Case Participants Only," so only those individuals will have access to view the document. (jg)
February 24, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER RE: Rule 12(b) Motions (details more fully stated in said Order). Signed by Judge Robert J. Colville on 2/24/21. (jg)
February 24, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 NOTICE that instant civil action has been designated for placement into the United States District Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program. Parties are directed to fully complete the required 26(f) report, which includes the stipulation of selecting an ADR process. Counsel for plaintiff (or in the case of a removal action, counsel for removing defendant) shall make service of the notice on all parties. (jg)
February 23, 2021 Opinion or Order Judge Robert J. Colville added. Judge Arthur J. Schwab no longer assigned to case. (mao)
February 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER Declining Assignment of Patent Case, in accordance with Section 1(a)(1)(C) of Public Law 111-349, Pilot Program in Certain District Courts. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 2/22/21. (lck)
February 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Summons Issued as to ENCHROMA, INC. (sdp)
February 19, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 2 Disclosure Statement identifying none as corporate parent or other affiliate, by EYENAVISION, INC.. (sdp)
February 19, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT against ENCHROMA, INC. (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $402, receipt number APAWDC-6356080), filed by EYENAVISION, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Civil Cover Sheet) (sdp)

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 Pennsylvania Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: EYENAVISION, INC. v. ENCHROMA, INC.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: ENCHROMA, 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 ]
Plaintiff: EYENAVISION, INC.
Represented By: Stephen J. Del Sole
Represented By: Bryan C. Devine
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?