Certusview Technologies, LLC v. S & N Locating Services, LLC et al

Plaintiff: Certusview Technologies, LLC
Defendant: S & N Locating Services, LLC and S & N Communications, Inc.
Case Number: 2:2013cv00346
Filed: May 29, 2013
Court: Virginia Eastern District Court
Office: Norfolk Office
County: Out of State
Presiding Judge: Mark S. Davis
Referring Judge: Lawrence R. Leonard
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 9, 2018 Opinion or Order 579 OPINION AND ORDER. The Court DENIES 573 Motion for Attorney Fees and Exceptional Case Finding. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 2/9/18. (bpet)
August 10, 2016 Opinion or Order 545 OPINION AND ORDER Denying 533 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's Judgment of Patent Ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, ECF No. 533, is DENIED. As no pertinent issues remain f or resolution on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 55, and as the Court has previously entered judgment on Defendants' declaratory judgment counterclaim for inequitable conduct, see ECF No. 542, the Clerk is REQUESTED to enter final judgment in Defendants' favor on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 8/10/16. Copies distributed to all parties 8/10/16. (ldab, )
September 1, 2015 Opinion or Order 364 Opinion & ORDER Granting in Part re: 232 Motion Request for Monetary Sanctions. Defendant S&Ns Request for Monetary Sanctions, ECF No. 232, is GRANTED IN PART, and S&N is awarded $57,722 in attorneys fees and $3,200.61 in costs, less $18,458.55 for CertusViews previous award, for a total award amount of $42,464.06. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller and filed on 9/1/15. Copies distributed to all counsel of record 9/1/15. (ldab, )
August 7, 2015 Opinion or Order 352 ORDER Denying 341 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 341. In light of such ruling, the Court CANCELS the hearing originally set for August 14, 2015 because oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. The Court DIRECTS counsel for the parties to contact the docket clerk within seven (7) days after the entry of this Memorandum Order to set the date for the bench trial in this matter.. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 8/7/15. Copies distributed to all parties 8/7/15. (ldab, )
June 1, 2015 Opinion or Order 329 ORDER Denying 257 Motion for Attorney Fees. The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants' Motion for Exceptional Case Finding & Attorneys' Fees, ECF No. 257. Defendants may re-file such motion within fourteen (14) days after the latte r of the Federal Circuit's ruling on the merits of Plaintiff's pending appeals (Nos. 15-1404, 15-1571) or the Court's entry of judgment with respect to Defendants' inequitable conduct counterclaims. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 6/1/15. Copies distributed to all parties 6/1/15. (ldab, )
May 22, 2015 Opinion or Order 325 OPINION AND ORDER 256 Motion Re: Objections to Magistrate Judge's Ruling or Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part 260 Motion to Strike. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, ECF No. 256, to the magistrat e judge's January 16, 2015 Order. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART CertusView's Motion to Strike and in the Alternative Dismiss S&N's First Amended Answer and Counterclaims, ECF No. 260. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to re-open this matter to allow Defendants to proceed with their inequitable conduct counterclaims. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 5/22/15. Copies distributed to all parties 5/22/15. (ldab, )
January 21, 2015 Opinion or Order 250 OPINION AND ORDER - GRANTS S&N's Motion for Judgment on the pleadings based on Failure to Claim Patent-Eligible Subject Matter, ECF No. 197. In light of such decision, the Court FINDS AS MOOT plaintiff's 213 Motion for Summary Judgment; and defendants' 216 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is REQUESTED to entr judgment in Defendants' favor pursuant to Rule 58 of the FR of Civil Procedure. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 1/21/15. (afar, )
October 1, 2014 Opinion or Order 159 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 140 Motion to Limit Number of Asserted Patent Claims. For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' renewed motion to limit the number of asserted paten t claims and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's cross-motion to limit the number of invalidity arguments. Certusview is DIRECTED to file an Election of Asserted Claims containing no more than FIFTEEN (15) claims within seven (7) days of the filing of this Opinion and Order. S&N is DIRECTED to make an Election of Asserted Prior Art containing no more than TWENTY FIVE (25) prior art references within seven (7) days after Certusview files its Election of Asserted Claims. As stated a bove, this Opinion and Order is without prejudice to either Certusview or S&N requesting, by an appropriate motion, to assert additional claims or additional prior art references upon a showing of good cause. The Court GRANTS S&N's unopposed request for leave to serve an amended opening invalidity expert report. If Defendants choose to file an amended opening invalidity expert report, they must do so within twenty one (21) days after Certusview files its Election of Asserted Claims. The Court DENIES S&N's motion for sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 9/30/14. Copies distributed to all counsel of record 10/1/14. (ldab, )
December 13, 2013 Opinion or Order 57 OPINION and ORDER the Court DENIES Defendants'motion to transfer venue. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 12/12/2013. (rsim, )

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 this case: Certusview Technologies, LLC v. S & N Locating Services, LLC et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Certusview Technologies, LLC
Represented By: Michael J. Lockerby
Represented By: Matthew Burt Lowrie
Represented By: Aaron William Moore
Represented By: Lori Allison Rubin
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: S & N Locating Services, LLC
Represented By: Mackenzie Marie DeWerff
Represented By: Michael Anthony Duffy
Represented By: John Giuseppe Flaim
Represented By: Weldon Barton Rankin
Represented By: Brian L. Whisler
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: S & N Communications, Inc.
Represented By: Mackenzie Marie DeWerff
Represented By: Michael Anthony Duffy
Represented By: John Giuseppe Flaim
Represented By: Weldon Barton Rankin
Represented By: Brian L. Whisler
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 [ 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.


Why Is My Information Online?