Universal Cipher, LLC v. Office Depot, Inc.
| Universal Cipher, LLC |
| Office Depot, Inc. |
| 2:2019cv00411 |
| December 20, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Rodney Gilstrap |
| Roy S Payne |
| Patent |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1126 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 13, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120). at termination of case. AO 120 mailed to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (ch, ) |
Filing 7
ORDER granting #6 MOTION to Dismiss with prejudice as to Defendant Office Depot Inc. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 2/13/2020. (ch, )
|
| Filing 6 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Office Depot, Inc. by Universal Cipher, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Johnson, Jay) |
| Filing 5 Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Office Depot, Inc..( Papastavros, Nicholas) |
| Defendant's Unopposed FIRST Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Office Depot, Inc. to 2/24/2020. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( ch, ) |
| Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Universal Cipher, LLC. Office Depot, Inc. served on 1/2/2020, answer due 1/23/2020. (Johnson, Jay) |
| CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. (ch, ) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS Issued as to Office Depot, Inc.. (ch, ) |
| Filing 2 Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120). AO 120 mailed to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (Johnson, Jay) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Plaintiff Universal Cipher's Original Complaint against Office Depot, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0540-7580571.), filed by Universal Cipher, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Johnson, Jay) |
| In accordance with the provisions of 28 USC Section 636(c), you are hereby notified that a U.S. Magistrate Judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or non-jury trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. The form #Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge is available on our website. All signed consent forms, excluding pro se parties, should be filed electronically using the event Notice Regarding Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge. (ch, ) |
| Case assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. (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
| Search for this case: Universal Cipher, LLC v. Office Depot, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Universal Cipher, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Jay Brett Johnson |
| 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: Office Depot, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Nicholas G Papastavros |
| 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.
