Cardtek International, Inc. v. Starbucks Corporation
Plaintiff: Cardtek International, Inc.
Defendant: Starbucks Corporation
Case Number: 2:2023cv00217
Filed: May 15, 2023
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Presiding Judge: Rodney Gilstrap
Referring Judge: Roy S Payne
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
June 20, 2023 Filing 7 ANSWER to #3 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim by Cardtek International, Inc..(Johnson, Logan)
May 31, 2023 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. (nkl, )
May 30, 2023 Filing 6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Andrew Hensley on behalf of Starbucks Corporation (Hensley, Andrew)
May 30, 2023 Filing 5 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Kyle A. Ceuninck on behalf of Starbucks Corporation (Ceuninck, Kyle)
May 30, 2023 Filing 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement filed by Starbucks Corporation (Miller, Richard)
May 30, 2023 Filing 3 ANSWER to #2 Amended Complaint , COUNTERCLAIM against Starbucks Corporation by Starbucks Corporation.(Miller, Richard)
May 15, 2023 Filing 2 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Starbucks Corporation, filed by Cardtek International, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Smith, Melissa)
May 15, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 1 ORDER - ORDERED- The above-captioned case is hereby severed, with The Kroger Co. remaining as the defendant in this action, and the Clerk opening a new civil action for Starbucks Corporation, which shall be consolidated with this action for pretrial purposes. A copy of this Order shall be the first filing in the new action. Cardtek International, Inc. shall file in their respective actions the amended complaints contained within its motion for severance within (7) days of this order. The order setting the case for scheduling conference (Dkt. No. 12) is hereby vacated. (CASE WAS SEVERED FROM 2:23-CV-45). Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 5/12/2023. (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 this case: Cardtek International, Inc. v. Starbucks Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cardtek International, Inc.
Represented By: Eric P Chenoweth
Represented By: Melissa Richards Smith
Represented By: Logan English 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: Starbucks Corporation
Represented By: Richard William Miller
Represented By: Clinton Ray South
Represented By: Andrew Hensley
Represented By: Kyle A. Ceuninck
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.


Why Is My Information Online?