Artrip v. The Ball Company et al
Case Number: 1:2014cv00014
Filed: March 18, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Virginia
Office: Abingdon Office
Presiding Judge: James P. Jones
Presiding Judge: Pamela Meade Sargent
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
August 24, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 110 OPINION and ORDER granting 90 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and the plaintiffs claims of induced infringement and contributory infringement against defendant Alcoa are dismissed with prejudice; granting in part and denying in part 91 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and the plaintiffs claims of direct infringement against Ball are dismissed without prejudice; Plaintiffs construed 99 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint as to Ball is granted, provided that any Third Amended Complaint must be filed within 21 days of this date; Plaintiffs construed 100 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint as to Alcoa is denied; directing the Clerk to terminate Alcoa Inc. as a party to this action. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 08/24/2017. (ab)
December 22, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 56 OPINION and ORDER treating ECF 38 as a Motion for Summary Judgment; and setting response deadlines. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 12/22/14. (ejs)
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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Artrip v. The Ball Company et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?