Google Inc. v. SourceProse Corporation
| Google Inc. |
| SourceProse Corporation |
| 1:2011cv00637 |
| July 26, 2011 |
| U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Austin Office |
| Lee Yeakel |
| Patent |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1338 Patent Infringement |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 27, 2011. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Christopher Schenck ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number 100010877) by on behalf of Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Receipt)(os) |
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Sourceprose, Inc.. (os) |
| Filing 4 Letter to Christopher Schenck re: non-admitted status. (os) |
| Filing 3 Report on Patent/Trademark sent to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (os) |
| Filing 2 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by Google, Inc.. (Albright, Alan) (Main Document 2 replaced on 7/27/2011) (os, ). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory Judgment ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0542-3807516), filed by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Albright, Alan) Modified on 7/26/2011 to correct filer's name (os). |
| Case Assigned to Judge Sam Sparks. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (os) |
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 Western 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.
