Disposition Services LLC v Dell Inc

Plaintiff: Disposition Services LLC
Defendant: Dell Inc
Case Number: 2:2013cv00282
Filed: April 19, 2013
Court: Texas Eastern District Court
Office: Marshall Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Rodney Gilstrap
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
August 30, 2013 36 Opinion or Order of the Court DISCOVERY ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 8/29/13. (ehs, )

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 Texas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Disposition Services LLC v Dell Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Disposition Services LLC
Represented By: Anthony G Simon
Represented By: Michael Patrick Kella
Represented By: James A Fussell, III
Represented By: Benjamin R Askew
Represented By: Andrew W. Spangler
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dell Inc
Represented By: Deron R Dacus
Represented By: Gilbert A Greene
Represented By: Sheila Kadura
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 [ 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.