IP Co., LLC d/b/a Intus IQ v. Crestron Electronics, Inc.
Plaintiff: IP Co., LLC d/b/a Intus IQ
Defendant: Crestron Electronics, Inc.
Case Number: 6:2012cv00821
Filed: October 29, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Office: Tyler Office
County: Anderson
Presiding Judge: Leonard Davis
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 271
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 2, 2013. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 2, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER granting #10 Motion to Dismiss. All claims and counterclaims between pltf and deft are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and attys' fees. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 01/02/13. cc:attys 1-02-13 (mll, )
December 21, 2012 Filing 10 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Joint Motion for Entry of Order of Dismissal With Prejudice Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) by Crestron Electronics, Inc., IP Co., LLC d/b/a Intus IQ. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kattula, Jessica)
November 21, 2012 Filing 9 Return of Service Executed as to Crestron Electronics, Inc. on 11/1/2012, by service on Texas Secretary of State. (mll, )
November 20, 2012 Filing 8 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by John C Herman on behalf of IP Co., LLC d/b/a Intus IQ (Herman, John)
November 20, 2012 Filing 7 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Ryan K Walsh on behalf of IP Co., LLC d/b/a Intus IQ (Walsh, Ryan)
November 20, 2012 Filing 6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jessica M Kattula on behalf of IP Co., LLC d/b/a Intus IQ (Kattula, Jessica)
November 19, 2012 Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint #5 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Crestron Electronics, Inc. to 12/23/2012. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )
November 16, 2012 Filing 5 Defendant's Unopposed FIRST Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Crestron Electronics, Inc.(Gillam, Harry)
October 29, 2012 Judge Leonard Davis added. (mll, )
October 29, 2012 Filing 4 SUMMONS Issued as to Crestron Electronics, Inc.. (klb)
October 29, 2012 Filing 3 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jack Wesley Hill on behalf of IP Co., LLC d/b/a Intus IQ (Hill, Jack)
October 29, 2012 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. (Ward, Thomas)
October 29, 2012 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Crestron Electronics, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0540-3848870.), filed by IP Co., LLC d/b/a Intus IQ. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A - U.S. Patent No. 6,044,062)(Ward, Thomas)

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: IP Co., LLC d/b/a Intus IQ v. Crestron Electronics, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: IP Co., LLC d/b/a Intus IQ
Represented By: John C Herman
Represented By: Thomas John Ward, Jr
Represented By: Jack Wesley Hill
Represented By: Jessica M Kattula
Represented By: Ryan K Walsh
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: Crestron Electronics, Inc.
Represented By: Harry Lee Gillam, Jr
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?