Fractus, S.A. v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al
| Fractus, S.A. |
| T-Mobile USA, INC and T-Mobile US, Inc. |
| CellMax Technologies AB |
| 2:2019cv00256 |
| July 26, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Rodney Gilstrap |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 10, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER granting Motion to Dismiss in Lead case 2:18-cv-135. ORDERED that all claims and counterclaims in Fractus, S.A., v. CellMax Technologies AB, Case Number 2:19-cv-00256-JRG, including all claims asserted against T-Mobile with respect to the CellMax products, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that all attorneys fees, costs of court and expenses be borne by the party incurring the same. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE Case Number 2:19-cv-00256-JRG.. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 9/10/2019. (ch, )
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Claire Abernathy Henry on behalf of Fractus, S.A. (Henry, Claire) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Thomas John Ward, Jr on behalf of Fractus, S.A. (Ward, Thomas) |
|
Filing 1
ORDER MEMORIALIZING AGREEMENT AND SETTING TRIAL SCHEDULE - Severed from 2:18-cv-135 and consolidated back into 2:18-cv-135 with 2:19-cv-255. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 7/25/2019. (ch, )
|
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 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.
