Bayer Cropscience AG et al v. Dow Agrosciences LLC et al
| Bayer Cropscience AG and Bayer Cropscience NV |
| Dow Agrosciences LLC, Mycogen Plant Science, Inc., Agrigenetics, Inc. and Phytogen Seed Company, LLC |
| 2:2012cv00047 |
| January 20, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Norfolk Office |
| Out of Country |
| Tommy E. Miller |
| Raymond A. Jackson |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
206
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: granting 110 MOTION to Seal Portions of Plaintiffs' Motion to Confirm Final Arbitration Award Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 207 ; granting 113 MOTION to Confirm Final Arbitration Award Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § ; 207 (Public Version) by Bayer Cropscience AG, Bayer Cropscience NV ; granting 116 Sealed Motion to Confirm Final Arbitration Award Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 207 by Bayer Cropscience AG, Bayer Cropscience NV; granting 129 MOTION to Seal by A grigenetics, Inc., Dow Agrosciences LLC, Mycogen Plant Science, Inc., Phytogen Seed Company, LLC; denying 132 MOTION to Vacate the Arbitration Award ; denying 134 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Concerning Plaintiffs' Motion to Confirm ; granti ng 185 MOTION to Seal (Plaintiffs Motion to Seal Portions of Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Confirm and in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Vacate Final Arbitration Award) ; granting 194 MOTION to Seal Defendants' ; Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Vacate the Arbitration Award; granting 200 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to the Record. Plaintiffs' Motion to Confirm the Award (ECF Nos. 113 and 116) is GRANTED, Defendants' Motion to Vacate the Award (ECF No. 132) is DENIED, and Defendants' Motion to Stay (ECF No. 134) is DENIED. A separate Order confirming the Award shall issue today. Each Motion to Seal (ECF Nos. 110, 129. 185, and 194) is GRANTED. The Motion for Leave to File Supplement to the Record (ECF No. 200) is GRANTED.Copy of Memorandum Opinion and Order provided to all parties. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 1/15/2016. (bgra)
|
|
Filing
52
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER that 25 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay This Action Pending Arbitration is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED and Defendants' alternati ve Motion to Stay This Action Pending Arbitration is GRANTED. All issues, including the alleged breach and termination of the License Agreement and all counts of Plaintiffs' Complaint in this case, shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with this Order and the License Agreement between the parties; directing the parties to commence arbitration procedures within 30 days of the date of this ORDER and to file notice of same with this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that once arbitration commences, the parties shall provide to the Court a joint status report every 120 days until the arbitration is concluded or the case is otherwise dismissed from the Court's docket. This matter is STAYED pending arbitration procedures, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3. During the pendency of this stay, either party may apply to the Court for further relief as the Court may see proper to provide, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 7/13/2012. (rsim, )
|
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.
