Cases 1 - 10 of 18
ConocoPhillips Company v. In-Depth Compressive Seismic, Inc. et al
as 4:2020cv04385
Defendant:
In-Depth Geophysical, Inc. and In-Depth Compressive Seismic, Inc.
Plaintiff:
ConocoPhillips Company
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
ConocoPhillips Company v. In-Depth Compressive Seismic, Inc. et al
as 4:2018cv00803
Plaintiff:
ConocoPhillips Company
Defendant:
In-Depth Compressive Seismic, Inc. and In-Depth Geophysical, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC v. ConocoPhillips Company
as 2:2016cv00148
Plaintiff:
Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC
Defendant:
ConocoPhillips Company
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
Geophysical Service Incorporated v. ConocoPhillips
as 4:2015cv02766
Plaintiff:
Geophysical Service Incorporated
Defendant:
ConocoPhillips
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101 Copyright Infringement
Data Carriers, LLC v. ConocoPhillips Company
as 2:2015cv01018
Plaintiff:
Data Carriers, LLC
Defendant:
ConocoPhillips Company
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
Olivistar LLC v. ConocoPhillips Company
as 2:2015cv00402
Plaintiff:
Olivistar LLC
Defendant:
ConocoPhillips Company
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
Separation Engineers, Inc. v. ConocoPhillips Company et al
as 4:2012cv02138
Plaintiff:
Separation Engineers, Inc.
Defendant:
ConocoPhillips Company , Phillips 66 Company and WRB Refining LP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Separation Engineers, Inc. v. ConocoPhillips Company et al
as 4:2012cv01713
Plaintiff:
Separation Engineers, Inc.
Defendant:
ConocoPhillips Company , Phillips 66 Company and WRB Refining LP
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
Droughton v. ConocoPhillips Company
as 4:2012cv01157
Plaintiff:
Charlotte R. Droughton
Defendant:
ConocoPhillips Company
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
Network Signatures Inc v. ConocoPhillips Company
as 8:2012cv00529
Defendant:
ConocoPhillips Company
Plaintiff:
Network Signatures Inc
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.
