CleanCut v. Rug Doctor et al
Plaintiff: |
CleanCut |
Defendant: |
Rug Doctor and Nature's Finest Candles |
Case Number: |
2:2008cv00836 |
Filed: |
October 30, 2008 |
Court: |
US District Court for the District of Utah |
Office: |
Patent Office |
County: |
Salt Lake |
Presiding Judge: |
Clark Waddoups |
Nature of Suit: |
Plaintiff |
Cause of Action: |
Federal Question |
Jury Demanded By: |
35:0145 Patent Infringement |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
September 22, 2015 |
Filing
229
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 226 Motion for Review/Reversal of Clerks Taxation of Costs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 9/22/15 (alt)
|
February 5, 2013 |
Filing
208
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION granting in part and denying in part 202 Motion for Entry of Judgment; denying 202 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying without prejudice 202 Motion for Permanent Injunction; denying 206 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 2/4/13 (alt)
|
July 23, 2012 |
Filing
159
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 146 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 148 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 7/23/12 (alt)
|
March 16, 2012 |
Filing
142
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION re construction of the remaining terms. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 3/16/12 (alt)
|
October 19, 2011 |
Filing
131
MEMORANDUM DECISION / MARKMAN ORDER. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 10/18/11 (alt)
|
May 27, 2010 |
Filing
58
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 50 Report and Recommendations, 38 Motion to Dismiss filed by Rug Doctor. The Court declines to dismiss the action, but Defendant is entitle to its attorneys fees and costs associated with bringing the motion, and it shall file an affidavit setting forth its reasonable fees and costs. Plaintiff shall not respond to Defendants fees/costs affidavit unless the court so orders. In addition, Plaintiff is ordered, for a third time, to supplement its initial disclosures to the extent it has not already done so. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 05/26/2010. (kpf)
|
May 12, 2010 |
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 43 defendants Motion to Compel. Plaintiff ordered to provide documents responsive to defendants requests for production within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order or submit an affidavit to defendants that all responsive documents have already been produced. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 5/12/2010. (ce)
|
April 6, 2010 |
Filing
51
MEMORANDUM DECISION granting in part and denying in part 32 Motion to Compel. The court concludes that Plaintiff's second supplemental privilege log is sufficient. That said, plaintiff is ordered to provide any previously withheld documents that are not protected by the attorney-client or work-product privilege or now covered under the protective order entered in this matter. In addition, the court has preliminarily determined that defendants are entitled to an award of sanctions. The parties are ordered to brief this issue as outlined in this memorandum decision. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 4/6/2010. (ce)
|
January 14, 2010 |
Filing
40
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDERdenying 27 Motion for Entry Protective Order; granting 29 Motion for Entry of Protective Order. The court will enter Defendants proposed protective order immediately upon entry of the instant order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 1/14/2010. (kpf)
|
October 20, 2009 |
Filing
26
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion to Compel. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 10/20/2009. (srs)
|
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 Utah District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?