Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Innolux Corporation
| Bishop Display Tech LLC |
| Innolux Corporation |
| 2:2022cv00385 |
| October 3, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Rodney Gilstrap |
| Roy S Payne |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 145 Patent Infringement |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Bishop Display Tech LLC. Innolux Corporation waiver sent on 10/28/2022, answer due 1/26/2023. (Conroy, Patrick) |
| Answer Due Deadline Updated for Innolux Corporation. (ch, ) |
| ***FILED IN ERROR. PER ATTORNEY Document # 8, Waiver of Service. PLEASE IGNORE.*** (ch, ) |
| Filing 8 ***FILED IN ERROR***WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Bishop Display Tech LLC. Innolux Corporation waiver sent on 11/7/2022, answer due 2/5/2023. (Conroy, Patrick) Modified on 11/8/2022 (ch, ). |
| Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Bishop Display Tech LLC. Innolux Corporation served on 10/12/2022, answer due 11/2/2022. (Conroy, Patrick) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Issued as to Innolux Corporation. (ch, ) |
| ***FILED IN ERROR. WRONG PARTY NAME Document # 5, Summons. PLEASE IGNORE.*** (ch, ) |
| Filing 5 ***FILED IN ERROR***SUMMONS Issued as to Innolux Corporation. (ch, ) Modified on 10/11/2022 (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, ) |
| Case assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. (ch, ) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by John Paul Murphy on behalf of Bishop Display Tech LLC (Murphy, John) |
| Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Bishop Display Tech LLC (Conroy, Patrick) |
| 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 Innolux Corporation ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ATXEDC-9160707.), filed by Bishop Display Tech LLC. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Conroy, Patrick) |
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: Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Innolux Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Bishop Display Tech LLC | |
| Represented By: | John Paul Murphy |
| Represented By: | Patrick Joseph Conroy |
| 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: Innolux Corporation | |
| 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.
