Kutt v. Intel Corporation et al
| Mers Kutt |
| Intel Corporation, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Apple Corporation, Research In Motion Inc., IBM Corporation, Best Buy Co. Inc. and J P Morgan Chase |
| 1:2012cv01489 |
| December 21, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Alexandria Office |
| Out of State |
| Gerald Bruce Lee |
| Thomas Rawles Jones |
| Patent |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1126 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 21, 2013. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. (See Order For Details). Signed by District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on 2/20/13. (nhall)
|
| Filing 3 Report on the filing or determination of an action regarding patent and/or trademark(s) 5,506,981. (rban, ) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Mers Kutt. (Attachments: # 1 Letter)(rban, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Apple Corporation, Best Buy Co. Inc., IBM Corporation, Intel Corporation, J P Morgan Chase, Research In Motion Inc., filed by Mers Kutt.(rban, ) |
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 Virginia Eastern 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.
