Evicam International, Inc. v. Enforcement Video, LLC
Plaintiff: Evicam International, Inc.
Defendant: Enforcement Video, LLC
Mediator: Jeff Kaplan
Case Number: 4:2016cv00105
Filed: November 24, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Office: Sherman Office
County: Tyler
Presiding Judge: Amos L. Mazzant
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1338
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 155 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - It is therefore ORDERED that Enforcement Video, LLC d/b/a WatchGuard Video's Motion for Summary Judgment for Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,211,907 and 6,950,013 for Un-Patentable Subject Matter Under Mayo/Alice (Dkt. 73 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 6/5/2017. (baf, )
February 28, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 89 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING re 45 Opposed MOTION for Protective Order filed by Evicam International, Inc.. WatchGuards deadline to designate expert witnesses with respect to the disputed prior art inventors is extended to no later than March 13, 2017. It is further ORDERED that Evicam may designate rebuttal expert witnesses with respect to the disputed prior art inventors until no later than March 27, 2017. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 2/28/17. (cm, )
November 8, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 60 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 24 MOTION to Amend/Correct for Leave to Supplement Invalidity Contentions filed by Enforcement Video, LLC. The Court hereby GRANTS WatchGuards Motion for Leave to Supplement Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. #24). Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 11/8/16. (cm, )
November 2, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 57 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The parties are ordered that they may not refer, directly or indirectly, to each others claim construction positions in the presence of the jury. Likewise, the parties are ordered to refrain from mentioning any portion o f this opinion, other than the actual definitions adopted by the Court, in the presence of the jury. Any reference to claim construction proceedings is limited to informing the jury of the definitions adopted by the Court. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 11/2/16. (cm, )
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: Evicam International, Inc. v. Enforcement Video, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Evicam International, Inc.
Represented By: Jamil N Alibhai
Represented By: Kelly P Chen
Represented By: Tiffany Marie Cooke
Represented By: Samuel Wallace Dunwoody, IV
Represented By: Michael Craig Wilson
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: Enforcement Video, LLC
Represented By: Jacylyn G Austein
Represented By: Adam Cooper Sanderson
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 ]
Mediator: Jeff Kaplan
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?