SOVEREIGN PEAK VENTURES, LLC, v. AsusTek Computer Inc.
| SOVEREIGN PEAK VENTURES, LLC, |
| AsusTek Computer Inc. |
| 2:2022cv00039 |
| February 3, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Rodney Gilstrap |
| Roy S Payne |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER granting #9 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint. AsusTek Computer Inc. answer due 6/6/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 3/8/2022. (ch, )
|
| Filing 9 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint by SOVEREIGN PEAK VENTURES, LLC,. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Conroy, Patrick) |
| Filing 8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by SOVEREIGN PEAK VENTURES, LLC,. AsusTek Computer Inc. served on 2/15/2022, answer due 3/8/2022. (Conroy, Patrick) |
| Filing 7 CORRECTED SUMMONS Issued as to AsusTek Computer Inc.. (ch, ) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by John Paul Murphy on behalf of SOVEREIGN PEAK VENTURES, LLC, (Murphy, John) |
| Filing 5 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by SOVEREIGN PEAK VENTURES, LLC, (Conroy, Patrick) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jonathan Hart Rastegar on behalf of SOVEREIGN PEAK VENTURES, LLC, (Rastegar, Jonathan) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS Issued as to AsusTek Computer 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. (Conroy, Patrick) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement against AsusTek Computer Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0540-8773751.), filed by SOVEREIGN PEAK VENTURES, LLC,. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Conroy, Patrick) |
| Case assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. (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, ) |
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: SOVEREIGN PEAK VENTURES, LLC, v. AsusTek Computer Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: SOVEREIGN PEAK VENTURES, LLC, | |
| Represented By: | Patrick Joseph Conroy |
| Represented By: | John Paul Murphy |
| Represented By: | Jonathan Hart Rastegar |
| 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: AsusTek Computer 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 ] |
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.
