• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Displaying 1749-1763 of 753,216 results

Order Setting Hearing ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Document Alonzo Cantu Construction, Inc. VS. Panasonic Corporation of North America, C-1628-19-H, Order Setting Hearing (Tex. St., Hidalgo Co., 389th District Ct. May. 29, 2019)
On this day came to be considered Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgmentfiled in the above-entitled and numbered cause.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment be held on the ____ day of 2019 at___— o'clock __.
m. inthe 389" Judicial District Court courtroom of Hidalgo County, Texas.
The Clerk of this Court is hereby ORDERED to notify all counsel of record of this setting.
SIGNED FOR ENTRYthis the day of 2019.
cite Cite Document

Everest Networks, Inc. v. Panasonic Corporation of North America, 2020-0438 - No. 86569581

Document Everest Networks, Inc. v. Panasonic Corporation of North America, 2020-0438, No. 86569581 (Del. Ch. Sep. 14, 2020)
EFiled: Sep 14 2020 02:39PM EDT Transaction ID 65928638 Case No. 2020-0438-JTL
cite Cite Document

INFINITY COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC. v. PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMER...

Docket 2:12-cv-06803, Pennsylvania Eastern District Court (Dec. 5, 2012)
LEGROME D. DAVIS, presiding
Patent
DivisionPhiladelphia
DemandPlaintiff
Cause35:145 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Panasonic Corporation of North America
Defendant Panasonic Corporation of North America
...
cite Cite Docket

Case Management Conference (Pages 1-44) (with excerpts) No. 747568

Document Certain IP Camera Systems including Video Doorbells and Components Thereof, 337-1242, No. 747568-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Jul. 20, 2021)
I will admit that Vivint and us have some more 6 cooperation to do as far as scheduling a code review and 7 then when to do a second deposition, but I believe we can 8 handle that without the Court's help at this point in time.
MR. SORDEN: Your Honor, to answer that question 13 carefully, I believe there was a folder identified and 14 correspondence that said here is where the code for the 15 Ping accused device was.
And it appears to be incorrect based upon a 18 review because we do not see the Ping firmware or source 19 code in that folder as identified by Vivint.
MR. SORDEN: I believe from Vivint's letter this 23 morning is that they are working with their financial folks 24 to figure out if they can determine the sales price 25 information.
But the 12 understanding and agreement that we've reached was that the 13 further deposition would be directed to, you know, new 14 material, again, recalling that they have already spent a 15 full day with this witness last Friday.
cite Cite Document

Digitech Image Technologies LLC v. Panasonic Corporation et al

Docket 8:12-cv-01667, California Central District Court (Oct. 1, 2012)
Otis D. Wright, II, presiding, Michael R. Wilner
Patent
DivisionSanta Ana (Southern Division)
DemandBoth
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Defendant Panasonic Corporation
Defendant Panasonic Corporation of North America
Counter Claimant Panasonic Corporation of North America
...
cite Cite Docket

Granting Unopposed Motion for Judicial Notice of USPTO Decisions Instituting Inter Partes Reviews No. 688912

Document Certain Infotainment Systems, Components Thereof, and Automobiles Containing the Same, 337-1119, No. 688912-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Sep. 23, 2019)
(September 23, 2019) On September 19, 2019, Respondent u-blox AG ("u-blox") filed a motion for judicial notice of two decisions instituting inter partes review proceedings for U.S. Patent No. 8,902,104 ("the '104 patent") (Motion Docket No. 1119-053).
Copies of the institution decisions were attached to the motion as Exhibits A and B. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, judicial notice is appropriate for "a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."
Judicial notice is appropriate for USPTO decisions related to an asserted patent.
Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, Order No. 23 (Apr. 16, 2019) (granting judicial notice for PTAB decisions).
These USPTO decisions "are matters of public record and 'capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy could not reasonably be questioned."
cite Cite Document

Case Management Conference (Pages 1-115) No. 746890

Document Certain IP Camera Systems including Video Doorbells and Components Thereof, 337-1242, No. 746890-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Jul. 13, 2021)
And Eyetalk's what appears to be sole function 19 in this world is to prosecute, license, litigate, and deal 20 with investors and other third parties with respect to the 21 patents, including primarily the patents-in-suit.
So I think this comes from a 5 number of different sources, but Mr. Helfer is, I 6 believe -- and Complainant can correct me if I'm wrong 7 about this -- the person who's solely responsible at 8 Eyetalk for handling licensing.
There was a -- a deposition that was 14 produced at some point in this case, which -- that 15 Mr. Helfer gave in connection with a SEC proceeding, where 16 it appears from the limited number of pages that we had, he 17 was having -- he was testifying about having communications 18 with what we believe to be at least one or more investors.
And a funny thing happens when I order an in 3 camera review about 75 percent of the withheld documents 4 are suddenly released because they don't actually involve 5 privileged communications.
Once the issues continued in 6 terms of the identification of only documents, and I 7 understand just yesterday Vivint supplemented for a second 8 time, and from a brief review, they have added narrative 9 responses.
cite Cite Document

COLIDA V. PANASONIC CORPORATION

Docket 09-1255, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
BRYSON, presiding.
Panasonic Corporation
...
cite Cite Docket

Everest Networks, Inc. v. Panasonic Corporation of North America, 2020-0438 - No. 86522355

Document Everest Networks, Inc. v. Panasonic Corporation of North America, 2020-0438, No. 86522355 (Del. Ch. Sep. 3, 2020)
I, David E. Ross, certify that on September 2, 2020, I caused true and correct copies of (i) Defendant Panasonic Corporation of North America’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant and (ii) this Notice and Certificate of Service to be served via File & ServeXpress upon the following counsel of record: Stephen B. Brauerman Justin Barrett
EFiled: Sep 02 2020 02:07PM EDT Transaction ID 65897107 Case No. 2020-0438-JTL
cite Cite Document

NANOE MOISTURE +

Docket 79263720, Trademark (May 27, 2019)
ClassElectric flat irons; curling tongs; electric hair styling irons; electric hair straightening irons; hair curling irons, electric; 023; 028; 044; 013; 021; 023; 031; 034
MarksNANOE MOISTURE +
Owner at Publication Panasonic Corporation
Original Registrant Panasonic Holdings Corporation
cite Cite Docket

ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT INC VS. PEASE, KANDRA MARIE

Docket 113-11724-CVKCD, Washington State, King County, District Court (Mar. 14, 2011)
Case TypeCivil
Garnishee Defendant PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA
...
cite Cite Docket

In Re the Matter of: FIFTY EIGHT DOLLARS; PANASONIC MICROWAVE MODEL NN-T945SF

Docket CV2011-01870, Arizona State, Yavapai County, Superior Court (Dec. 15, 2011)
Case TypeCivil
Property PANASONIC MICROWAVE MODEL NN-T945SF
...
cite Cite Docket

Agreement to Be Bound by the Protective Order of Hoda Rifai-Bashjawish No. 746231

Document Certain IP Camera Systems including Video Doorbells and Components Thereof, 337-1242, No. 746231-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Jul. 8, 2021)
The Honorable Lisa R. Barton Secretary of the Commission U.S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, SW Washington, DC 20436 July 8, 2021 Re: In the matter of Certain IP Camera Systems including Video Doorbells and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1242 Dear Secretary Barton: On behalf of Complainants SkyBell Technologies, Inc., SB IP Holdings, LLC, and Eyetalk365, LLC, enclosed for filing please find the Non-Disclosure Agreement to the Protective Order for Hoda Rifai-Bashjawish.
Washington, D.C. Before the Honorable Clark S. Cheney Administrative Law Judge In the Matter of
I, the undersigned, on behalf of Complainants, acknowledge that information submitted for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used:
by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C.
Appendix 3; or by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes.
cite Cite Document

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

Docket 16/966,393, U.S. Patent Application (July 30, 2020)
Art Group2800
Case TypeUtility - 257/079000
Class257
Applicant PANASONIC SEMICONDUCTOR SOLUTIONS CO., LTD.
cite Cite Docket

Respondents' Tentative Witness List No. 746089

Document Certain IP Camera Systems including Video Doorbells and Components Thereof, 337-1242, No. 746089-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Jul. 6, 2021)
Washington D.C. 20436 Re: Certain IP Camera Systems Including Video Doorbells and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1242 Dear Secretary Barton: Enclosed please find the Public Version of Respondents’ Tentative Witness List.
Pursuant to the Revised Procedural Schedule (Order No. 7) and Ground Rules (Order No. 6), Respondents Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (“Vivint”), SimpliSafe, Inc. (“SimpliSafe”), and Arlo Technologies, Inc. (“Arlo”) (collectively, “Respondents”) hereby identify the following tentative list of witnesses who may be called by Respondents to testify at the evidentiary hearing either in their case-in-chief or for purpose of rebuttal, with an identification of each witness’s relationship to a party.
Respondents may also call as of yet unidentified individuals with knowledge relevant to any of the publications or patents listed on their June 17, 2021 Notice of Prior Art.
In addition to and subject to the reservations in the foregoing, Respondents identify the following potential witnesses: Witness or Entity Name Ronald Carter Emmanuel Ozoeneh Panasonic Corporation of North America and any individual designated to testify on behalf of Panasonic i-PRO Sensing Solutions Panasonic i-PRO Sensing Solutions Corporation of America and any individual designated to testify on behalf of Panasonic i-PRO Sensing Solutions James Marcella and any other individual designated to testify on behalf of Axis Communications, Inc. Key Tronic Corporation and any individual designated to testify on behalf of Key Tronic Corporation Brett Larsen Jay Melhloff Kirby Drake Bobby Braxton Charles Tillman Jeremy Doerre Dr. Kevin Almeroth Julia Rowe Robert L. Stoll Dr. John Villasenor Dr. Kenneth Wacks John White Darrell Holigan Relation to Party Third party, named inventor of Asserted Patents Third party, named inventor of U.S.
Via E-mail Adam R. Alper Akshay S. Deoras KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Michael W. de Vries KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90071
cite Cite Document
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 117 118 119 120 121 ... >>