R2 Solutions LLC v. GameStop Corp et al
| R2 Solutions LLC |
| GameStop Corp., GameStop, Inc., GameStop Corp and GameStop Inc |
| 3:2022cv02870 |
| December 21, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Karen Gren Scholer |
| Brantley Starr |
| Property Rights: Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ELECTRONIC ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that #10 Defendants GameStop Corp. and GameStop, Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint, to and including February 21, 2023, is GRANTED. (Ordered by Judge Karen Gren Scholer on 1/20/2023) (chmb)
|
| Filing 10 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by GameStop Corp, GameStop Inc (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)Attorney Adrienne E Dominguez added to party GameStop Corp(pty:dft), Attorney Adrienne E Dominguez added to party GameStop Inc(pty:dft) (Dominguez, Adrienne) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER: In light of related litigation involving the Plaintiff in the Court of the Honorable Karen Gren Scholer, the Court reassigns this case to Judge Scholer. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 1/11/2023) (twd)
|
| Filing 8 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to GameStop Inc ; served on 12/29/2022. (Nelson, Edward) |
| Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to GameStop Corp ; served on 12/29/2022. (Nelson, Edward) |
| Filing 6 Summons Issued as to GameStop Corp, GameStop Inc. (mms) |
| Filing 5 Report to Patent/Trademark Office of Initiating Document. Form AO 120 e-mailed to notice_of_suit@uspto.gov. (mms) (Main Document 5 replaced on 12/22/2022) (mms). |
| Filing 4 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Ramirez). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (mms) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by R2 Solutions LLC. (Clerk QC note: Affiliate entry indicated). (Nelson, Edward) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark (AO 120) filed by R2 Solutions LLC (Nelson, Edward) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against GameStop Corp, GameStop Inc filed by R2 Solutions LLC. (Filing fee $402; Receipt number ATXNDC-13392455) Clerk to issue summons(es). In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit(s) 1, #3 Exhibit(s) 2, #4 Exhibit(s) 3, #5 Exhibit(s) 4, #6 Exhibit(s) 5, #7 Exhibit(s) 6, #8 Exhibit(s) 7, #9 Exhibit(s) 8, #10 Exhibit(s) 9, #11 Exhibit(s) 10) (Nelson, Edward) Modified text on 12/22/2022 (mms). |
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 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.
