Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.
| Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. |
| Fortinet, Inc. |
| 2:2022cv00171 |
| May 24, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Rodney Gilstrap |
| Roy S Payne |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 7, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER granting #7 Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 7/6/2022. (nkl, )
|
| Filing 7 Unopposed MOTION to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rabicoff, Isaac) |
| Filing 6 Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Cedar Lane Technologies Inc..( Rabicoff, Isaac) |
| Defendant's Unopposed FIRST Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Fortinet, Inc. to 7/18/2022. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( ch, ) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Issued as to Fortinet, Inc.. (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. (Rabicoff, Isaac) |
| Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Rabicoff, Isaac) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Rabicoff, Isaac) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT against Fortinet, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ATXEDC-8942101.), filed by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rabicoff, Isaac) |
| 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 and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. (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: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff |
| 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: Fortinet, 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.
