Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al v. NetApp, Inc.
Plaintiff: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.
Defendant: NetApp, Inc.
Case Number: 2:2025cv00517
Filed: May 9, 2025
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Presiding Judge: Rodney Gilstrap
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1338 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 17, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 17, 2025 Filing 14 FILED IN ERROR IN MEMBER CASE. ALL DOCUMENTS IN CONSOLIDATED CASES SHALL BE FILED IN THE LEAD CASE MOTION for Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 by NetApp, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Proposed Order)(Vidal, Katherine) Modified on 10/20/2025 (KLC).
August 25, 2025 Filing 13 FILED IN ERROR PER ATTORNEY-UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to 39 Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by NetApp, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Vidal, Katherine) Modified on 8/25/2025 (mdj).
July 1, 2025 Filing 12 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Justin Kurt Truelove on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Truelove, Justin)
June 27, 2025 Opinion or Order Filing 11 CONSOLIDATION ORDER- The above-captioned cases are hereby ORDERED to be CONSOLIDATED for all pretrial issues with the LEAD CASE, Case No. 2:25-cv-00516. All parties are instructed to file any future filings in the LEAD CASE.. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 06/26/2025. (KLC)
June 11, 2025 Filing 10 Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is granted. NetApp, Inc. answer is now due 7/28/2025. (Text entry only, no document attached.)(mdj)
June 11, 2025 Filing 9 Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint filed by NetApp, Inc.. Summons originally served on 6/12/2025. Agreed new answer date is 7/28/2025.(Bittner, Michael)
May 29, 2025 Filing 8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Valtrus Innovations Ltd., Key Patent Innovations Ltd.. NetApp, Inc. served on 5/22/2025. (Rubino, Vincent)
May 14, 2025 Filing 7 SUMMONS Issued as to NetApp, Inc.. (mdj)
May 12, 2025 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. (mdj)
May 12, 2025 District Judge Rodney Gilstrap added. (mdj)
May 9, 2025 Filing 6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Peter Lambrianakos on behalf of Key Patent Innovations Ltd., Valtrus Innovations Ltd. (Lambrianakos, Peter)
May 9, 2025 Filing 5 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Alfred Ross Fabricant on behalf of Key Patent Innovations Ltd., Valtrus Innovations Ltd. (Fabricant, Alfred)
May 9, 2025 Filing 4 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Vincent J Rubino, III on behalf of Key Patent Innovations Ltd., Valtrus Innovations Ltd. (Rubino, Vincent)
May 9, 2025 Filing 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement filed by Key Patent Innovations Ltd., Valtrus Innovations Ltd. identifying Corporate Parent Key Patent Innovations Ltd. for Valtrus Innovations Ltd.; Corporate Parent New PP Licensing LLC for Key Patent Innovations Ltd.. (Rubino, Vincent)
May 9, 2025 Filing 2 Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120). AO 120 emailed to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (Rubino, Vincent)
May 9, 2025 Filing 1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT against NetApp, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ATXEDC-10831487.), filed by Valtrus Innovations Ltd., Key Patent Innovations Ltd.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - U.S. Patent No. 8,370,416, #2 Exhibit B - U.S. Patent No. 8,370,571, #3 Exhibit C - U.S. Patent No. 7,904,686, #4 Exhibit D - U.S. Patent No. 7,856,488, #5 Exhibit E - U.S. Patent No. 7,120,832, #6 Exhibit F - U.S. Patent No. 7,640,332, #7 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rubino, Vincent)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al v. NetApp, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
Represented By: Peter Lambrianakos
Represented By: Alfred Ross Fabricant
Represented By: Vincent J Rubino, III
Represented By: Justin Kurt Truelove
Represented By: Ryan F Oliver
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Key Patent Innovations Ltd.
Represented By: Vincent J Rubino, III
Represented By: Peter Lambrianakos
Represented By: Alfred Ross Fabricant
Represented By: Justin Kurt Truelove
Represented By: Ryan F Oliver
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: NetApp, Inc.
Represented By: Michael Andrew Bittner
Represented By: Katherine K. Vidal
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 [ 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?