TIARE TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. BELK, INC.
| TIARE TECHNOLOGY, INC. |
| BELK, INC. |
| 2:2021cv00302 |
| August 5, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Rodney Gilstrap |
| Roy S Payne |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 28, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 Defendant's Unopposed Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re BELK, INC..( Wharton, Jacob) |
| Defendant's Unopposed SECOND Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for BELK, INC. to 10/14/2021. 15 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( ch, ) |
| Filing 7 Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re BELK, INC.( Wharton, Jacob) |
| Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for BELK, INC. to 9/29/2021. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( nkl, ) |
| CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. (ch, ) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by TIARE TECHNOLOGY, INC.. BELK, INC. served on 8/9/2021, answer due 8/30/2021. (Davis, William) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Issued as to BELK, INC.. (ch, ) |
| 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, ) |
| Filing 4 Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120). AO 120 mailed to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (Hurt, Christian) |
| Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by TIARE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (Hurt, Christian) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Christian J Hurt on behalf of TIARE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (Hurt, Christian) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT For Patent Infringement against BELK, INC. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0540-8525420.), filed by TIARE TECHNOLOGY, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 729 Patent, #2 Exhibit 2 414 Patent, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Davis, William) |
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: TIARE TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. BELK, INC. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: TIARE TECHNOLOGY, INC. | |
| Represented By: | Christian J Hurt |
| Represented By: | William Ellsworth Davis, III |
| 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: BELK, INC. | |
| Represented By: | Jacob Steven Wharton |
| 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.
