Nautilus Hyosung Inc v. Diebold Incorporated et al
Nautilus Hyosung Inc |
Diebold Incorporated and Diebold Self-Service Systems |
3:2016cv00364 |
February 9, 2016 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
Dallas Office |
XX Outside US |
David C Godbey |
Patent |
35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 102 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: This Order addresses the construction of one of several disputed claim terms pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc, 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). It appears to the Court that, given its finding and holding regarding the phrase "cheque standby unit," it is unnecessary to proceed with further claim construction. The Court directs the parties to confer and determine if they can submit a proposed final judgment that is agreed as to form. If they are unable to agree on that, the Court directs the parties to provide their respective views regarding what further proceedings the Court should conduct to bring this case to final judgment by letters docketed on CM/ECF no later than 5:00 p.m., fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 7/23/2020) (oyh) |
Filing 83 Memorandum Opinion and Order Grants Because there is a fact issue as to the '235 patent's validity, the Court declines Diebold's 47 motion to dismiss. The Court orders the parties to mediate by January 31, 2020. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 12/5/2019) (ndt) |
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 Northern 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.