InnoMemory LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America
| InnoMemory LLC |
| Panasonic Corporation of North America |
| 2:2023cv00339 |
| July 20, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Roy S Payne |
| Robert W Schroeder |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 13, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Defendant's Unopposed Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re InnoMemory LLC.( Rabicoff, Isaac) |
| Defendant's Unopposed SECOND Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Panasonic Corporation of North America to 10/2/2023. 15 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( ch, ) |
| Filing 6 Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re InnoMemory LLC.( Rabicoff, Isaac) |
| Defendant's Unopposed FIRST Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Panasonic Corporation of North America to 9/15/2023. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( ch, ) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Issued as to Panasonic Corporation of North America. (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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement filed by InnoMemory LLC (Rabicoff, Isaac) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff on behalf of InnoMemory LLC (Rabicoff, Isaac) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT against Panasonic Corporation of North America ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ATXEDC-9610209.), filed by InnoMemory LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 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 Robert W. Schroeder, III 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: InnoMemory LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: InnoMemory LLC | |
| 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: Panasonic Corporation of North America | |
| 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.
