Portus Singapore PTE Ltd et al v. Panasonic Corporation of North America
Plaintiff: Portus Singapore PTE Ltd and Portus PTY Ltd
Defendant: Panasonic Corporation of North America
Case Number: 3:2026cv01829
Filed: June 3, 2026
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Presiding Judge: Brian McKay
Referring Judge: Karen Gren Scholer
Nature of Suit: Property Rights: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 31, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
July 31, 2026 Filing 12 ELECTRONIC ORDER denying #6 Motion to Proceed without Local Counsel. Plaintiffs are to have local counsel enter an appearance in this case within 14 days of this order. (Ordered by US Magistrate Judge Brian McKay on 7/31/2026)
June 17, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 11 Order: To be consistent with the previously filed related cases, the Court ORDERS the Clerk ofthe Court to reassign the referral judge to United States Magistrate Judge Brian McKay and refers this case for pretrial management. (Ordered by Judge Karen Gren Scholer on 6/17/2026) (frw) Modified text on 6/17/2026 (frw).
June 17, 2026 Case Referred to US Magistrate Judge Brian McKay per #11 . (frw)
June 4, 2026 Filing 10 Summons Issued as to Panasonic Corporation of North America. (kxm)
June 4, 2026 Filing 8 Report to Patent/Trademark Office of Initiating Document. Form AO 120 e-mailed to [email protected]. (kxm)
June 3, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ELECTRONIC STANDING ORDER: Counsel are required to review and comply with the Court's Judge Specific Requirements, which can be found here: # Judge Requirements . The Court updates its Requirements periodically. Also, counsel are required to review and comply with the Northern District of Texas's Local Civil Rules, which can be found here: # Civil Rules . In particular, the Court directs counsel to review Rules 3.1, 7.4, and 81.2, regarding certificates of interested persons, and Rule 83.10, regarding local counsel. Counsel are expected to review the Requirements and Local Rules before contacting the Court with questions. (Ordered by Judge Karen Gren Scholer on 6/3/2026) (kxm)
June 3, 2026 Filing 7 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. (kxm)
June 3, 2026 Filing 6 MOTION for Waiver of the Local Counsel Requirement filed by Portus Singapore PTE Ltd, Portus PTY Ltd. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Ramey, William) Modified text on 6/4/2026 (kxm).
June 3, 2026 Filing 5 NOTICE of Related Case filed by Portus Singapore PTE Ltd, Portus PTY Ltd. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A) (Ramey, William) Modified text on 6/4/2026 (kxm).
June 3, 2026 Filing 4 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Portus Singapore PTE Ltd. & Portus PTY Ltd.. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Ramey, William)
June 3, 2026 Filing 3 Request for Clerk to issue Summons filed by Portus Singapore PTE Ltd. & Portus PTY Ltd.. (Ramey, William) (Main Document 3 flattened on 6/4/2026) (kxm).
June 3, 2026 Filing 2 NOTICE of Report re. Filing of Action Regarding a Patent (AO-120) filed by Portus Singapore PTE Ltd, Portus PTY Ltd. (Ramey, William) (Main Document 2 flattened on 6/4/2026) (kxm).
June 3, 2026 Filing 1 COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against Panasonic Corporation of North America filed by Portus Singapore PTE Ltd. & Portus PTY Ltd.. (Filing fee $405; Receipt number ATXNDC-16501900) Plaintiff will submit summons(es) for issuance. 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 Exhibit(s) B, #3 Exhibit(s) C, #4 Exhibit(s) D, #5 Cover Sheet) (Ramey, William)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 this case: Portus Singapore PTE Ltd et al v. Panasonic Corporation of North America
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Portus Singapore PTE Ltd
Represented By: William P Ramey, III
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Portus PTY Ltd
Represented By: William P Ramey, III
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Panasonic Corporation of North America
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 [ 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?