Aprese Systems Texas, LLC v. Roku, Inc.
| Aprese Systems Texas, LLC |
| Roku, Inc. |
| 6:2019cv00528 |
| September 9, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Alan D Albright |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 3, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Reset Deadlines: Roku, Inc. answer due 12/6/2019. (lad) |
Text Order GRANTING #8 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer entered by Judge Alan D Albright. Came on for consideration is Defendant's Motion. Noting that it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion. Defendant shall have up to and including December 6, 2019 to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jy)
|
| Filing 8 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint by Roku, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Howton, Skyler) |
| Reset Deadlines: Roku, Inc. answer due 11/6/2019. (lad) |
|
Text Order GRANTING #7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer entered by Judge Alan D Albright. Came on for consideration is Defendant's Motion. Noting that it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion. Defendant shall have up to and including November 6, 2019 to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jy)
|
| Filing 7 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint by Roku, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Howton, Skyler) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Aprese Systems Texas, LLC. Roku, Inc. served on 9/16/2019, answer due 10/7/2019. (Mort, Raymond) |
| Filing 5 Report on Patent sent to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (lad) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Roku, Inc. (lad) |
| Filing 3 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by Aprese Systems Texas, LLC. (Mort, Raymond) |
| Filing 2 RULE 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Aprese Systems Texas, LLC. (Mort, Raymond) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0542-12577709), filed by Aprese Systems Texas, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Mort, Raymond) |
| Case assigned to Judge Alan D Albright. 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. (lad) |
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 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
| Search for this case: Aprese Systems Texas, LLC v. Roku, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Roku, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Skyler M. Howton |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Aprese Systems Texas, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Raymond W Mort, 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 | [ Unicourt | 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.
