Shenzhenshijinxindundianzishangwuyouxiangongsi et al v. Daka Research Inc
| Shenzhenshijinxindundianzishangwuyouxiangongsi, Dongguanshichaweidianzishangwuyouxiangongsi, lan shan qu zhao yuan bai huo dian, Yuanzhouquqishabaihuodian, Shenzhenshixinyufankejiyouxiangongsi, Shenzhen Baichenan Trading Co Ltd, Dongguanshibaxuandianzishangwuyouxiangongsi, Shenzhenshibaishengyiwangluokejiyouxiangongsi, Dongguanshiedengshuangmaoyiyouxiangongsi and dongguanshinuoxiangmaoyiyouxiangongsi |
| Daka Research Inc |
| 3:2024cv00966 |
| April 21, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Brantley Starr |
| Property Rights: Patent |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 Declaratory Judgment |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 22, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
Electronic Standing Order - If they have not already done so, all attorneys appearing in this case must file a Certificate Regarding Judge-Specific Requirements on the docket attesting that they have read, and will comply with, the judge-specific requirements for this Court, including the Court's order concerning generative artificial intelligence. The judge-specific requirements and a template Certificate may be found at: # Certificate Regarding Judge-Specific Requirements. To file the Certificate, please use the event entitled Certificate Regarding Judge-Specific Requirements. This event is located in the Other Documents selection, which is under the Other Filings category of the Civil page in ECF. Please contact the ECF help desk at 214-753-2633 for filing assistance. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 4/22/2024) (axm)
|
| Filing 3 Report to Patent/Trademark Office of Initiating Document. Form AO 120 e-mailed to notice_of_suit@uspto.gov. (axm) |
| Filing 2 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 Horan). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (axm) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against Daka Research Inc. filed by Shenzhen Baichen An Trading Co., Ltd., Lanshan District Zhaoyuan Department Store, Dongguan Baxuan Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd., Dongguan Edengshuang Trading Company, Ltd., Dongguan Chawei E-commerce Company, Ltd., Shenzhen Baishengyi Network Technology Co., Ltd., Yuanzhou District Qisha Department Store, Shenzhen Jinxindun Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd., Dongguan Nuoxiang Trading Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Xinyufan Technology company, Ltd.. (Filing fee $405; Receipt number ATXNDC-14556360) Summons(es) not requested at this time. 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 Exhibit(s) A, #2 Cover Sheet) (Ni, Hao) |
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.
