Nordock Inc v. Systems Inc
Plaintiff: Nordock Inc
Defendant: Systems Inc
Case Number: 2:2011cv00118
Filed: January 28, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Office: Milwaukee Office
County: XX Outside US
Presiding Judge: Rudolph T Randa
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Both
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 28, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 281 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin on 2/28/2018 DENYING 279 Nordock Inc's 7(h) Expedited MOTION for Leave to Expand the Number of Interrogatories and Depositions. (cc: all counsel) (lz)
November 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 270 DECISION AND ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin on 11/21/2017 DENYING 257 NORDOCK INC's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the article of manufacture; and DENYING 263 SYSTEMS INC's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the article of manufacture. The Clerk shall set this matter for a telephonic scheduling conference to discuss further scheduling. (cc: all counsel) (lz)
March 29, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 241 ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 3/29/2016 GRANTING 239 Defendant's Request for Stay. Case STAYED until further order of the Court. Parties MUST FILE written notification within a week of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Defendant's petition for certiorari review, and its decision in Samsung Electronics v. Apple, No. 15-777. (cc: all counsel)(cb)
July 31, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 206 ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 7/31/2014. 179 Defendant's MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgment DENIED; 180 Plaintiff's MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgment GRANTED with respect to prejudgment interest in the amount of $10,170.09 and its entitlement to post-judgment interest under 28 USC § 1961 and DENIED in all other respects; 195 Defendant's MOTION for Order to Show Cause DENIED; 199 Plaintiff's MOTION for Order to Show Cause DENIED. (cc: all counsel)(cb)
May 30, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 202 ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 5/30/2014. 201 Nordock's Motion to Seal GRANTED with respect to Exhibit F (Pilgrim's deposition) and DENIED with respect to Exhibit A (McGuire's deposition). Nordock MUST FILE in the public r ecord revised version of its opposition to motion for order to show cause that includes excerpts/information from McGuire's testimony. Clerk of Court DIRECTED TO FILE Exhibit A [199-12] in the public record. Any member of the public may challenge the sealing of any paper sealed pursuant to this Order. (cc: all counsel) (cb)
March 13, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 163 ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T Randa on 3/13/2013 Denying 129 Motion in Limine; Denying 131 Motion in Limine; Granting 133 Motion in Limine; Denying 135 Motion in Limine; Granting 141 Motion in Limine; Granting 144 Motion in Limine; Granting 148 Motion to Seal Documents 147-2 & 147-3; Granting in part and Denying in part 140 Motion in Limine. (cc: all counsel) (Zik, Linda)
February 26, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 143 ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 2/26/2013. 52 MOTION to Strike Adam Brookman as Expert Witness on Trade Dress and Unfair Competition GRANTED to the extent that Sections 1,1a,1b, and 1c of Brookman's report are struck and he ma y not testify as to that content, and DENIED in all other respects; 59 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to validity and enforceability of the '754 patent filed by Nordock Inc. GRANTED as to the following defenses: anticipation, ob viousness, prosecution estoppel, laches, equitable estoppel and unclean hands, and DENIED in all other respects; 65 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Systems, Inc. DENIED; 111 MOTION to Strike Patent Attorney Adam L. Brookman as an Expert a s to the Validity, Claim Construction and Infringement of Nordock's '754 Design Patent DENIED; 113 Rule 7(h) Expedited Non-Dispositive MOTION For an Order Directing Nordock to Pay Expert Fees, GRANTED to the extent that Nordock must pay an additional $1,700.00 to Bero by 3/4/2013, and DENIED in all other respects. (cc: all counsel)(cb)
February 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 137 ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 2/19/2013 GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 125 Motion to Compel. Motion GRANTED with respect to supplementation of timely rquested financial records and DENIED with respect to production of Bero report with post-October 2011 profit information. (cc: all counsel) (cb)
December 6, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 98 ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 12/6/2012. MOTIONS to seal 73 84 and 92 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART (See Order for Details). Nordock must file in the public record revised versions of documents including excerpts of Hahn&# 039;s testimony: (1) its memorandum of law in opposition to Systems' motion for summary judgment (2) proposed statement of material facts (3) its reply to Systems' opposition to it summary judgment motion (4) Nordock's supporting proposed statement of facts. Clerk of Court is DIRECTED TO FILE Exhibit M [63-17] and Exhibit AL [81-11] and [88-1] in the public record. Any member of the public may challenge the sealing of any paper sealed pursuant to this Order. (cc: all counsel)(cb)
October 5, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 77 ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 10/5/2012. Nordock's Motion to compel 21 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; System's Motion to schedule a claim construction hearing 22 DENIED; Systems' Rule 7(h) expedited non-dispositive Motion for sanctions and to seal documents 28 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Nordock's Motion to compel production of Systems' legal opinions 31 GRANTED as follows: Systems must produce the Mann opinions and the parties should ent er into agreement that Nordock may not use or attempt to use opinions to disqualify Mann as counsel in this action; Nordock's Motion to seal opposition to Systems' motion 33 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Nordock's motions to se al the expert reports of Bero 38 and Smith 42 and to seal exhibit A of Sokol declaration 57 GRANTED; Nordock MUST FILE redacted versions of the Bero and Smith reports; Any member of the public may challenge the sealing of any paper sealed pursuant to this Order; Nordock's Motion to strike Bero's report 40 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED PART. See Order for details. (cc: all counsel)(cb)
July 31, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 7/31/2012 re 33 MOTION to Seal Opposition to Defendant's Motion. On or before 8/10/2012, Nordock MUST FILE a memorandum in support of its motion to seal that analyzes in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the denial of Nordock's motion. (cc: all counsel)(cb)
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 Wisconsin Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Nordock Inc v. Systems Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Nordock Inc
Represented By: Jeffrey S Sokol
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Systems Inc
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?