§Why CasetextPricing

Riddell Inc v. Kranos Corporation

RESPONSE

9 Cited authorities

  1. Collins v. Illinois

    554 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 233 times
    Finding the pro se plaintiff's failure to participate in her deposition "was willful and egregious" and grounds for sanctions despite recognizing "that the Plaintiff may not have the familiarity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and specifically the rules pertaining to discovery, as a licensed attorney"

  2. In re Deutsche Bank

    605 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 175 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Federal Circuit law governs such matters in the patent context and applying the Rule 26 good cause standard in assessing a proposed patent prosecution bar

  3. U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States

    730 F.2d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 256 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court erred when it prohibited access to confidential information based on attorney's status as "in-house" counsel and requiring case-by-case and attorney-by attorney determination

  4. Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

    744 F. Supp. 2d 758 (N.D. Ill. 2010)   Cited 20 times

    Case No. 08 C 7231. September 29, 2010. Rudolf E. Hutz, Daniel C. Mulveny, Jef-frey B. Bove, Mary W. Bourke, Connolly Bove Lodge Hutz LLP, Wilmington, DE, Jeffrey Mark Drake, John S. Mortimer, Wood Phillips, Chicago, IL, William E. Mcshane, Connolly Bove Lodge Hutz LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. William Andrew Rakoczy, Andrew M. Alul, Deanne M. Mazzochi, Paul J. Molino, Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP, Chicago, IL, John C. Phillips, Jr., Brian E. Farnan, Phillips, Goldman Spence, P.A., Wilmington

  5. Oleksy v. Gen. Elec. Co.

    Case No. 6 C 1245 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2014)   Cited 1 times
    Ordering defendant to recreate source code that it failed to preserve

  6. Amtab Mfg. Corp. v. Sico Inc.

    Case No. 11 C 2692 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2012)   Cited 2 times

    Case No. 11 C 2692 01-19-2012 AMTAB MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. SICO INCORPORATED and SICO AMERICA, INC., Defendants. JOHN W. DARRAH Judge John W. Darrah MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On April 22, 2011, Plaintiff AmTab Manufacturing Corporation ("AmTab") filed a patent infringement suit against Defendants SICO Incorporated and SICO America, Inc. (collectively, "SICO"), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,758,113 (the "'113 Patent"), which relates to support and safety technology

  7. Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

    No. 08 C 1215 (N.D. Ill. May. 12, 2010)   Cited 3 times

    No. 08 C 1215. May 12, 2010 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SUSAN COX, Magistrate Judge Plaintiff, Intellect Wireless, Inc., filed suit against T-Mobile USA, Inc. and United States Cellular Corporation (collectively referred to as "defendants") for the infringement of four patents that relate to wireless phone service. Plaintiff now moves this Court for leave to file certain documents under seal and for entry of a protective order [dkt 139]. Defendants do not object to the documents being filed under

  8. In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litigation

    249 F.R.D. 302 (N.D. Ill. 2008)

    Terry Rose Saunders, Thomas Arthur Doyle, Saunders & Doyle, Daniel A. Edelman, Francis Richard Greene, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs. Brian P. Brooks, John H. Beisner, O'Melveny & Myers, Washington, DC, Michael C. O'Neil, Paula Davis Friedman, Peter J. Donoghue, Roger L. Longtin, DLA Piper U.S. LLP, Thomas Patrick Arden, Elayna Tau Pham, Holland & Knight LLC, Stefan R. Dandelles, David M. Holmes, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, Chicago, IL, Amy

  9. Section 132 - Notice of rejection; reexamination

    35 U.S.C. § 132   Cited 308 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting addition of "new matter"