VirtaMove, Corp. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
| VirtaMove, Corp. |
| Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company |
| 2:2024cv00093 |
| February 9, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Rodney Gilstrap |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 19, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 Defendant's Unopposed Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.( Doan, Jennifer) |
| Defendant's Unopposed SECOND Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company to 4/15/2024. 10 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( ch, ) |
| Filing 15 Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.( Doan, Jennifer) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Joshua Reed Thane on behalf of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (Thane, Joshua) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jennifer Haltom Doan on behalf of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (Doan, Jennifer) |
| Defendant's Unopposed FIRST Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company to 4/5/2024. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( ch, ) |
| Filing 12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by VirtaMove, Corp.. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company served on 2/14/2024. (Ma, Jonathan) |
| Filing 11 SUMMONS Issued as to Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. (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. (ch, ) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Neil Alan Rubin on behalf of VirtaMove, Corp. (Rubin, Neil) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Marc A Fenster on behalf of VirtaMove, Corp. (Fenster, Marc) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jonathan Ma on behalf of VirtaMove, Corp. (Ma, Jonathan) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Amy Elizabeth Hayden on behalf of VirtaMove, Corp. (Hayden, Amy) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Christian W Conkle on behalf of VirtaMove, Corp. (Conkle, Christian) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Designation of Attorney in Charge to Reza Mirzaie on behalf of VirtaMove, Corp. (Mirzaie, Reza) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Related Case by VirtaMove, Corp. (Mirzaie, Reza) |
| Filing 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement filed by VirtaMove, Corp. (Mirzaie, Reza) |
| 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. (Mirzaie, Reza) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement against Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ATXEDC-9970838.), filed by VirtaMove, Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Civil Cover Sheet)(Mirzaie, Reza) |
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
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.
