Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Edsal Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. JS Products, Inc.
as 2:2023cv00972
Plaintiff:
Edsal Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Defendant:
JS Products, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1338 Copyright Infringement
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00461
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
JS Products, Inc. v. Roller Clutch Tools, LLC
as 2:2017cv02615
Plaintiff:
JS Products, Inc.
Defendant:
Roller Clutch Tools, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgement
Roller Clutch Tools, LLC v. JS Products, Inc.
as 2:2017cv00035
Plaintiff:
Roller Clutch Tools, LLC
Defendant:
JS Products, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1126
Roller Clutch Tools, LLC, a California limited liabilty company v. JS Products, Inc. a Nevada Corporation
as 2:2017at00008
Plaintiff:
Roller Clutch Tools, LLC, a California limited liabilty company
Defendant:
JS Products, Inc. a Nevada Corporation
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1126
JS Products, Inc. v. Kabo Tool Company
as 2:2011cv01856
Plaintiff:
JS Products, Inc.
Defendant:
Kabo Tool Company and Chih-Ching Hsieh
Interested Party:
Sears Holding Corporation
Material Witne:
Chih Hsiang Hsu
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgment
Mag Instrument, Inc. v. JS Product, Inc. et al
as 2:2008cv02781
Plaintiff:
Mag Instrument, Inc. and Mag Instrument, Inc.
Defendant:
JS Product, Inc. and DOES
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
JS Products, Inc. v. Practical Goods Group, Inc.
as 2:2007cv00911
Plaintiff:
JS Products, Inc., JS Products, Inc., JS Products, Inc. and others
Defendant:
Practical Goods Group, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1126 Patent Infringement
NOT USED
as 2:2007cv00910
Plaintiff:
JS Products, Inc., Jill M Lorenzen, Jeffrey S Standley and others
Defendant:
Practical Goods Group, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1126 Patent Infringement
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.