Paper Entered: May 4, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19 571.272.7822 Entered: May 4, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD"

Transcription

1 Paper Entered: May 4, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, Patent Owner. Case IPR U.S. Patent No. 7,984,081 B1 Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Granting Petitioner s Request to File Supplemental Evidence as Supplemental Information Granting Patent Owner s Request to Cross-Examine Third-Party Declarant 37 C.F.R (b), 42.64(b)(2), (b) A conference call in the above proceeding was held on April 30, 2015 among respective counsel for International Business Machines Corporation ( Petitioner ) and Intellectual Ventures I LLC ( Patent Owner ) and Judges

2 Chang, Bisk, and Parvis. The purpose of the call was to discuss Petitioner s request to file its supplemental evidence that has been served on Patent Owner, as supplemental information under 37 C.F.R (b). The supplemental evidence includes a Declaration of Mr. Richard Reader, Manufacturing and Distribution Senior Director at Oracle Corporation (a third party to this trial), and related exhibits containing screenshots of Oracle Corporation s computer system for software and document shipments ( Oracle Declaration ). Exs Upon further discussion, Patent Owner requested cross-examination of Mr. Reader regarding his Declaration. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner s request is granted. We also grant Patent Owner s request for cross-examination of Mr. Reader, as further limited below and, at this stage of the proceeding, only if Oracle Corporation agrees. 1. Background and the April 30, 2015 Call On February 11, 2015, we instituted the instant trial based on at least one asserted ground of unpatentability over Oracle 8i Application Developer s Guide XML, Release 3 (8.1.7) (Sept. 2000) (Exhibit 1008) ( Oracle Developer s Guide ). Paper 7, As noted in the Decision to Institute (Paper 7, 19), the Oracle Developer s Guide includes a date of September 2000 on the first page and a copyright on the second page, as well as a part number (Part No. A ) and the Oracle trademark. Ex Based on the evidence submitted with the Petition, we determined Petitioner has made sufficient showing that Oracle Developer s Guide qualifies as a printed publication, for purposes of instituting a trial. Paper 7, 2

3 19. Subsequently, Patent Owner served Petitioner objections under 37 C.F.R (b)(1), alleging Oracle Developer s Guide had not been shown to be a prior art printed publication or authenticated, and it is inadmissible hearsay. Ex. 1016, 7. Petitioner seeks to submit additional evidence demonstrating that one of the prior art references on which it is relying in the Petition is prior art. More specifically, the evidence that Petitioner seeks to submit relates to the date of first public availability of the Oracle Developer s Guide, which is one of the asserted prior art references in this proceeding. Petitioner obtained the evidence as a result of a subpoena that we previously authorized on March 27, Paper 15, 9. In particular, we authorized Petitioner, under 35 U.S.C. 24, to apply for a subpoena to compel discovery from Oracle Corporation limited in scope to the particular document request and deposition request submitted as Exhibit Id. During the call on April 30, 2015, Petitioner notified us that Oracle Corporation responded to Petitioner s subpoena by serving the Oracle Declaration. Petitioner served the Oracle Declaration (Exs ) on Patent Owner as supplemental evidence on April 23, 2015, prior to the due date set forth in our Order. Id. Petitioner now seeks authorization to file the Oracle Declaration (Exs ) as supplemental information under 37 C.F.R (b). 1 In 1 In addition to the Declaration of Mr. Reader, and supporting documents (Exs ), Petitioner also seeks to submit its subpoena to Oracle Corporation (Ex. 1036), as well as its certificate of service (Ex. 1037). 3

4 response to our request during the call, Petitioner submitted for our consideration the evidence that Petitioner seeks authorization to file. Patent Owner opposes Petitioner s request on the basis that Patent Owner contends it is prejudiced by Petitioner serving supplemental evidence after the April 30, 2015 due date set forth in our Order. Paper 15, 9. In particular, Patent Owner contends that it needs sufficient time to formulate a strategy for responding, in its Patent Owner Response, to the full scope of the evidence. Patent Owner further opposes Petitioner s request because Patent Owner has not had an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Reader. 2. Analysis of Petitioner s Request As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of providing that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R (c). A party may file a motion to submit supplemental information if the request is made within one month of the date the trial was instituted and the supplemental information is relevant to a claim for which trial has been instituted. 37 C.F.R (a). In this case, Petitioner s request is more than one month after the date that trial was instituted. Accordingly, we look to 37 C.F.R (b), which requires a showing of why the supplemental information reasonably could not have been obtained earlier, as well as showing that consideration of the supplemental information would be in the interests-of-justice. Petitioner s request is limited to submitting supplemental information, which, in accordance with our prior Order (Paper 15, 9), has already been served on Patent Owner on April 23, 2015 as supplemental evidence to respond to Patent Owner s objection regarding the prior art status of the Oracle Developer s Guide. As indicated in our prior Order, we already 4

5 determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently why the information is relevant and could not be obtained without the subpoena. Paper 15, 4 5. We, therefore, determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the evidence is relevant and reasonably could not have been obtained earlier. Because Petitioner s evidence responds to an objection by Patent Owner regarding the public availability of a prior art reference, we further determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that submitting this evidence is in the interests-of-justice. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner s contention that it is prejudiced by filing this supplemental evidence after April 30, First, we note that Petitioner filed the evidence for our consideration on April 30, Additionally, as discussed in the Decision to Institute (Paper 7, 19), if, upon receiving the supplemental evidence, Patent Owner is still of the opinion that the Oracle Developer s Guide is inadmissible, Patent Owner may file a motion to exclude the Oracle Developer s Guide. See 37 C.F.R (c). According to the Scheduling Order ( Sched. Order, Paper 17) in this proceeding, the due date for a Motion to exclude evidence is October 2, Furthermore, Petitioner previously agreed to an extension of the date for the Patent Owner response, which is now due June 11, Paper 15, 9. We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner s contention that the information cannot be submitted because Patent Owner has not conducted a cross-examination of the declarant, Mr. Reader. Our Order permitted Patent Owner to attend Petitioner s deposition and cross-examine the witness. Paper 15, 9. Petitioner, however, did not conduct an oral examination, but 5

6 instead accepted a written declaration. We further note that Patent Owner has not requested authorization to file a motion to compel discovery and Petitioner is satisfied with the discovery it received from Oracle Corporation. We, therefore, are not persuaded by Patent Owner s contention. 3. Analysis of Patent Owner s Request We treat Patent Owner s contention as a request to cross-examine Mr. Reader. We grant Patent Owner s request, but only regarding the subject matter of his direct testimony, which in this case appears to be extremely narrow (see Ex (three page declaration of Mr. Reader)). Additionally, at this stage, we are providing an opportunity for Patent Owner to crossexamine Mr. Reader, but only if Oracle Corporation agrees. Patent Owner should ascertain whether Oracle Corporation agrees to Patent Owner s crossexamination of Mr. Reader within five business days of this Decision. If Oracle Corporation does not agree to Patent Owner s crossexamination, Patent Owner is given ten business days from the date of this Decision to file its motion for authorization to compel discovery pursuant to 37 C.F.R (a). Petitioner is given four business days from the date of Patent Owner s motion to file an opposition. No reply is authorized at this time. Both papers are limited to seven pages. We encourage Patent Owner to place as little burden on Oracle Corporation as possible. We note that Mr. Reader s declaration is threepages in length with two one-page exhibits. See Exs We, therefore, urge Patent Owner to request a cross-examination of Mr. Reader that is limited to one-hour and is arranged in a manner other than an in- 6

7 person deposition. We note that consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence, parties may obtain discovery in various ways, including deposition by remote means such as taking a deposition by telephone. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(4); see also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 31 (Depositions by Written Questions). Patent Owner should attach to its motion an exhibit with the narrow request that Patent Owner proposes be attached to its subpoena, including written questions if Patent Owner determines that it would like to pursue this alternative instead of an oral cross-examination of Mr. Reader. We caution Patent Owner that a request that is not tailored narrowly will not be granted, in part because thus far Patent Owner has not provided persuasive evidence showing a reason to doubt the date on the Oracle Developer s Guide. Our intent is to allow Patent Owner an opportunity to request the crossexamination of Mr. Reader on his Declaration. We will not grant a request that could lead to an unnecessary fishing expedition. In addition to the guidance above, Patent Owner also should consider the factors discussed in our Order of March 4, 2015 authorizing Petitioner to file a motion for authorization to compel testimony. See generally Paper 10. In the event that Patent Owner submits an overly broad request that we deny, we will consider Mr. Reader s Declaration and supporting evidence without crossexamination. 4. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied its burden and is authorized to file the Oracle Declaration (Exs ) as supplemental information under 37 C.F.R (b). We also permit 7

8 Petitioner to submit the subpoena and certificate of service. Because Petitioner has already submitted this evidence for our consideration as Exhibits 1036 through 1040, Petitioner need not resubmit this evidence. Exhibits 1036 through 1040 hereby are part of the record in the proceeding. We, additionally, grant Patent Owner s request to cross-examine Mr. Reader, but only regarding the subject matter of his direct testimony and only if Oracle Corporation agrees. Patent Owner should ascertain whether Oracle Corporation agrees to Patent Owner s cross-examination of Mr. Reader within five business days of this Decision. If Oracle Corporation does not agree to Patent Owner s crossexamination, Patent Owner is given ten business days from the date of this Decision to file its motion for authorization to compel discovery pursuant to 37 C.F.R (a). Petitioner is given four business days from the date of Patent Owner s motion to file an opposition. No reply is authorized at this time. Both papers are limited to seven pages. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized under 37 C.F.R (b) to file supplemental information Exhibits 1036 through 1040, previously submitted for our consideration, and Exhibits 1036 through 1040 are considered to be in the record as supplemental information in this proceeding without any further action by Petitioner; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner should ascertain if Oracle Corporation agrees to Patent Owner s cross-examination of Mr. Reader, 8

9 limited to subject matter of his direct testimony within five business days of this Decision; and FURTHER ORDERED that if Oracle Corporation does not agree to Patent Owner s cross-examination, Patent Owner is given ten business days from the date of this Decision to file its motion for authorization to compel Mr. Reader s testimony pursuant to 37 C.F.R (a), Petitioner is given four business days from the date of Patent Owner s motion to file an opposition, no reply is authorized, and both papers are limited to seven pages. 9

10 For PETITIONER: Kenneth R. Adamo Eugene Goryunov KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP For PATENT OWNER: Brenton R. Babcock Ted M. Cannon KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP Don Coulman Tim R Seeley INTELLECTUAL VENTURES 10

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 5 571-272-7822 Date: June 13, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 5 571-272-7822 Date: June 13, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 5 571-272-7822 Date: June 13, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ORACLE CORPORATION Petitioner, v. CLOUDING IP, LLC Patent

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 96 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 11, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 96 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 11, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 96 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 11, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CORNING INCORPORATED Petitioner v. DSM IP ASSETS B.V.

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: March 28, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: March 28, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: March 28, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE, LLC Petitioner

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 12 571.272.7822 Entered: June 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 12 571.272.7822 Entered: June 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 12 571.272.7822 Entered: June 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE, INC., Petitioner, v. CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.,

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19 571-272-7822 Entered: October 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19 571-272-7822 Entered: October 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19 571-272-7822 Entered: October 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., TSMC

More information

Trial@uspto.gov Paper 38 571-272-7822 Entered: March 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trial@uspto.gov Paper 38 571-272-7822 Entered: March 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trial@uspto.gov Paper 38 571-272-7822 Entered: March 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC., Petitioner, v. 5th MARKET,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS M.R. 3140 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Order entered February 16, 2011. (Deleted material is struck through and new material is underscored.) Effective immediately, Supreme Court Rules

More information

Inter Partes Review Part II: Trial

Inter Partes Review Part II: Trial Challenging Patent Validity in the USPTO: Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Proposed Rules Inter Partes Review Part II: Trial Presented By: Karl Renner Dorothy Whelan Co-Chairs of Post Grant

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 26 571-272-7822 Entered: June 8, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 26 571-272-7822 Entered: June 8, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 26 571-272-7822 Entered: June 8, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD EPICOR SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PROTEGRITY CORPORATION,

More information

Challenging Patent Validity in the USPTO: Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Final Rules. Inter Partes Review

Challenging Patent Validity in the USPTO: Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Final Rules. Inter Partes Review Challenging Patent Validity in the USPTO: Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Final Rules Inter Partes Review Presented By: Karl Renner Dorothy Whelan Co-Chairs of Post Grant Practice, Fish

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 26 571-272-7822 Date: June 11, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 26 571-272-7822 Date: June 11, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 26 571-272-7822 Date: June 11, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IDLE FREE SYSTEMS, INC. Petitioner, v. BERGSTROM, INC. Patent

More information

Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division

Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division In the Case of: Gary Grossman, Petitioner, - v. - The Inspector General. Date: May 4, 2009 Docket No. C-09-227

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Date: March 8, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Date: March 8, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Date: March 8, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MICROSOFT CORPORATION Petitioner v. PROXYCONN, INC. Patent

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD E*TRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, E*TRADE SECURITIES,

More information

Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division

Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division M. Dwight Evans, Petitioner, v. Social Security Administration. Docket No. C-14-552 Decision No. CR3143 Date:

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 28 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner,

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 28 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, Trials@uspto.gov Paper 28 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: May 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE

More information

The trademark lawyer as brand manager

The trademark lawyer as brand manager The trademark lawyer as brand manager This text first appeared in the IAM magazine supplement Brands in the Boardroom 2005 May 2005 For further information please visit www.iam-magazine.com Feature The

More information

COMMENTARY. Amending Patent Claims in Inter Partes Review Proceedings

COMMENTARY. Amending Patent Claims in Inter Partes Review Proceedings SEPTEMBER 2015 COMMENTARY Amending Patent Claims in Inter Partes Review Proceedings The inter partes review ( IPR ) statute authorizes a patent owner ( PO ) to file, after an IPR has been instituted, one

More information

Inter Partes Review: Claim amendments at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. October 8, 2015

Inter Partes Review: Claim amendments at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. October 8, 2015 Inter Partes Review: Claim amendments at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board October 8, 2015 Today s presenters Mike Stimson Norton Rose Fulbright San Antonio, Texas Brandy Nolan Norton Rose Fulbright Dallas,

More information

Case 2:07-cv-10945-SFC-MKM Document 132 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 2:07-cv-10945-SFC-MKM Document 132 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 2:07-cv-10945-SFC-MKM Document 132 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DURA GLOBAL, TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL

More information

Case 2:06-cv-03669-DRH-ETB Document 26 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 1 of 9 CV 06-3669 (DRH) (ETB)

Case 2:06-cv-03669-DRH-ETB Document 26 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 1 of 9 CV 06-3669 (DRH) (ETB) Case 2:06-cv-03669-DRH-ETB Document 26 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------------X

More information

Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division

Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division Scott Christie, Psy.D. (OI File No. H-12-42635-9) Petitioner, v. The Inspector General. Docket No. C-14-88 Decision

More information

Case 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv Document 85 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv Document 85 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 8 Case 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv Document 85 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION SPINE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Finjan, Inc., Petitioner v. FireEye, Inc.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Finjan, Inc., Petitioner v. FireEye, Inc. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Finjan, Inc., Petitioner v. FireEye, Inc., Patent Owner Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-00344 Filing Date: January 14,

More information

Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 460-6 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 33934. Exhibit G

Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 460-6 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 33934. Exhibit G Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 460-6 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 33934 Exhibit G Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 460-6 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 33935 Paper No. 7 UNITED STATES PATENT

More information

August 19, 2004-1 - Final Decision and Order 04-150 STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

August 19, 2004-1 - Final Decision and Order 04-150 STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION August 19, 2004-1 - Final Decision and Order 04-150 STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Student v. Shelton Board of Education On behalf of the Parents: On behalf of the Board: Before Hearing Officer:

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Franke v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. et al Doc. 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil No. 1cv JM (JLB)

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. * Civil Action No.: RDB 10-1895 MEMORANDUM OPINION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. * Civil Action No.: RDB 10-1895 MEMORANDUM OPINION Joel I. Sher, Chapter 11 Trustee, * IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Plaintiff, * v. * Civil Action No.: RDB 10-1895 SAF Financial, Inc., et al., * Defendants. * * * * *

More information

Case 2:13-cv-05842-JCZ-KWR Document 26 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:13-cv-05842-JCZ-KWR Document 26 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Case 2:13-cv-05842-JCZ-KWR Document 26 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GAIL CARTER, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 13-5842 GULFSTREAM PROPERTY AND

More information

THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB MARCH 9, 99 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB MARCH 9, 99 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Paper No. 29 HRW THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB MARCH 9, 99 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Theodore E. Charles v. The

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. GREEN, S.J. September, 1999

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. GREEN, S.J. September, 1999 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. No. 96-CV-4598 PATRICIA M. CURRY KELLY, et al., Defendants.

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 20 571-272-7822 Entered: April 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 20 571-272-7822 Entered: April 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 20 571-272-7822 Entered: April 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD EXPERIAN MARKETING SOLUTIONS, INC. and EPSILON DATA MANAGEMENT,

More information

ORDER SETTING TIMES (Times for taking action--priority testimony phase) conference call was at

ORDER SETTING TIMES (Times for taking action--priority testimony phase) conference call was  at Part A. Conference call ORDER SETTING TIMES (Times for taking action--priority testimony phase) A @hearing/telephone conference call was held on @ @, 200@_, at approximately @ : a/p.m., involving: 1. @,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SQUARE, INC. Petitioner. THINK COMPUTER CORPORATION Patent Owner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SQUARE, INC. Petitioner. THINK COMPUTER CORPORATION Patent Owner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SQUARE, INC. Petitioner v. THINK COMPUTER CORPORATION Patent Owner Case No.: CBM2014-00159 Patent 8,396,808 MOTION TO

More information

DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD

DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Appellate Division In the Case of: The Physicians Hospital in Anadarko, Petitioner, - v. - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. DATE:

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3218 ELADIO S. CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. Eladio S. Camacho,

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Document Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IN RE: MICHAEL TODD CHRISLEY, Chapter 7 Case No. 13-56132-MGD Debtor. JASON L. PETTIE, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 571-272-7822 Date: May 14, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 571-272-7822 Date: May 14, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 571-272-7822 Date: May 14, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ORACLE CORPORATION Petitioner v. CLOUDING IP, LLC Patent Owner

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION EEOC versus BROWN & GROUP RETAIL, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-3074 Memorandum and Order Regarding Discovery Motions,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Case 3:13-cv-30138-MGM Document 100 Filed 08/12/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS PREFERRED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 13-30138-MGM LEONARD

More information

Case 2:12-cv-02198-JWS Document 113 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 2:12-cv-02198-JWS Document 113 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case 2:12-cv-02198-JWS Document 113 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Mary M. Murphy, individually and as conservator for her minor children, W. M. and L. M.,

More information

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: February 2, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: February 2, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: February 2, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SALESFORCE.COM, INC., Petitioner, v. APPLICATIONS IN

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION RAY BRUNSON AND MARY BRUNSON, Plaintiffs, vs. No. 07-2320-MaV STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY, COMPANY, Defendant.

More information

Case3:10-cv-02066-SI Document117 Filed06/21/11 Page1 of 7

Case3:10-cv-02066-SI Document117 Filed06/21/11 Page1 of 7 Case:0-cv-00-SI Document Filed0// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY INC., v. Plaintiff, SIDENSE CORPORATION, Defendant. / No. C 0-00

More information

CHAPTER 7 UNIFORM COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES

CHAPTER 7 UNIFORM COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES CHAPTER 7 UNIFORM COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES Section 1. Authority. These Uniform County Board of Equalization Practice and Procedure Rules are promulgated by authority of

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0761 444444444444 IN RE NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

More information

Opposition to Motion to Amend for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,392,684 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Opposition to Motion to Amend for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,392,684 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, LLC Petitioner v. SILVER PEAK SYSTEMS, INC. Patent Owner Patent No. 8,392,684 Title: DATA

More information

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 413 Filed 09/25/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 413 Filed 09/25/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 413 Filed 09/25/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA LAURIE MILLER, BRIAN DIMAS, KIM MILLS, ANTHONY SOZA, BRUCE CAMPBELL, KELLIE 2:13-cv-1419

More information

United States District Court

United States District Court Case:-cv-00-RS Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JASMINDA WEBB, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ABB INC. Petitioner v. ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION Patent Owner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ABB INC. Petitioner v. ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION Patent Owner Filed on behalf of ABB Inc. By: (Reg. No. 46,921) rick.mcleod@klarquist.com Michael D. Jones (Reg. No. 41,879) michael.jones@klarquist.com Klarquist Sparkman LLP UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

More information

NOW COMES Defendant, Daniel W. Tuttle ( Mr. Tuttle ), by and through counsel, and

NOW COMES Defendant, Daniel W. Tuttle ( Mr. Tuttle ), by and through counsel, and NORTH CAROLINA DAVIDSON COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 06 CVS 948 AZALEA GARDEN BOARD & CARE, INC., Plaintiff, v. MEREDITH DODSON VANHOY, Personal Representative of the

More information

UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES The Library of Congress

UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES The Library of Congress UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES The Library of Congress In re DETERMINATION OF ROYALTY RA TES AND TERMS FOR EPHEMERAL RECORDING AND DIGITAL PERFORMANCE OF SOUND RECORDINGS (WEB IV) Docket No.14-CRB-0001-WR

More information

Acknowledgments Introduction: Welcome to the Labyrinth. CHAPTER 1 Gathering the Evidence 1. CHAPTER 2 Third-Party Experts 25

Acknowledgments Introduction: Welcome to the Labyrinth. CHAPTER 1 Gathering the Evidence 1. CHAPTER 2 Third-Party Experts 25 Acknowledgments Introduction: Welcome to the Labyrinth xi xiii CHAPTER 1 Gathering the Evidence 1 Form 1.1: General Preliminary Electronic Evidence Questions for Your Client 3 Form 1.2: Checklist to Define

More information

Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division

Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division Tammie Harder, NP, Petitioner, v. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Docket No. C-15-455 Decision No. CR3626

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOAN FALLOWS KLUGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. L-10-00022 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Joan Fallows

More information

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. [Docket No. 40-38367, NRC-2015-0255] Rare Element Resources, Inc.; Bear Lodge Project

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. [Docket No. 40-38367, NRC-2015-0255] Rare Element Resources, Inc.; Bear Lodge Project This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 11/16/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-29031, and on FDsys.gov [7590-01-P] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

More information

Case 0:12-cv-60597-JIC Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/13 12:33:23 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:12-cv-60597-JIC Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/13 12:33:23 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 0:12-cv-60597-JIC Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/13 12:33:23 Page 1 LISA KOWALSKI, a Florida resident, v. Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan

More information

Any civil action exempt from arbitration by action of a presiding judge under ORS 36.405.

Any civil action exempt from arbitration by action of a presiding judge under ORS 36.405. CHAPTER 13 Arbitration 13.010 APPLICATION OF CHAPTER (1) This UTCR chapter applies to arbitration under ORS 36.400 to 36.425 and Acts amendatory thereof but, except as therein provided, does not apply

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ARISTA RECORDS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; BMG MUSIC,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION E-WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-12-3314 LOREX CANADA, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Pending before the

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE In the Matter of a ) Uniform Pretrial Order ) ) Administrative Order 3AO-03-04 (Amended) UNIFORM PRETRIAL ORDER In order

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying

More information

8:08-cv-00541-LSC-TDT Doc # 301 Filed: 04/01/10 Page 1 of 10 - Page ID # 2724 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

8:08-cv-00541-LSC-TDT Doc # 301 Filed: 04/01/10 Page 1 of 10 - Page ID # 2724 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 8:08-cv-00541-LSC-TDT Doc # 301 Filed: 04/01/10 Page 1 of 10 - Page ID # 2724 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA PETER KIEWIT SONS INC. and KIEWIT CORPORATION, ATSER, LP,

More information

v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS

v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE GIAN BIOLOGICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS BIOMET INC. and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington

More information

Case 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS,

More information

Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division. Steve McFarland, ACNP, Petitioner,

Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division. Steve McFarland, ACNP, Petitioner, Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division Steve McFarland, ACNP, Petitioner, v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Docket No. C-12-842 Decision

More information

HEARING EXAMINER RULES FOR WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION CASES

HEARING EXAMINER RULES FOR WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION CASES City of Seattle OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING EXAMINER RULES FOR WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION CASES Adopted May 8, 2014 Office of Hearing Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000 Mailing: PO Box 94729 Seattle,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RONALD DUTTON, : : Consolidated Under Plaintiff, : MDL DOCKET NO. 875 : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. : 09-62916 TODD SHIPYARDS CORP.,

More information

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT E-Filed Document May 19 2014 15:36:57 2013-IA-00181-SCT Pages: 10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. No. 2013-IA-00181 VICKSBURG HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a RIVER REGION HEALTH SYSTEM APPELLANT VS.

More information

Case 1:09-cv-21435-MGC Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2011 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:09-cv-21435-MGC Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2011 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 1:09-cv-21435-MGC Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2011 Page 1 of 6 E. JENNIFER NEWMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 09-21435-Civ-COOKE/TURNOFF vs. Plaintiff

More information

LOCAL OPERATING PROCEDURES IMMIGRATION COURT DALLAS, TEXAS BIG SPRING, TEXAS

LOCAL OPERATING PROCEDURES IMMIGRATION COURT DALLAS, TEXAS BIG SPRING, TEXAS Effective Date: 09-01-99 LOCAL OPERATING PROCEDURES IMMIGRATION COURT DALLAS, TEXAS BIG SPRING, TEXAS Preamble. These rules are adopted under the authority of 8 C.F.R. 3.40 for the purpose of facilitating

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION. PAM HOWARD and EBEN HOWARD ex rel UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION. PAM HOWARD and EBEN HOWARD ex rel UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION PAM HOWARD and EBEN HOWARD ex rel UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFFS v. No. 4:13CV00310 JLH ARKANSAS CHILDREN S HOSPITAL;

More information

Case 2:05-cv-05148-DRD-MAS Document 98 Filed 06/30/08 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1595 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 2:05-cv-05148-DRD-MAS Document 98 Filed 06/30/08 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1595 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 205-cv-05148-DRD-MAS Document 98 Filed 06/30/08 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1595 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY STEPHEN W. LEIBHOLZ, Civil Action No. 05-5148 (DRD)

More information

(2) For production of public records or hospital medical records. Where the subpoena commands any custodian of public records or any custodian of hosp

(2) For production of public records or hospital medical records. Where the subpoena commands any custodian of public records or any custodian of hosp Rule 45. Subpoena. (a) Form; Issuance. (1) Every subpoena shall state all of the following: a. The title of the action, the name of the court in which the action is pending, the number of the civil action,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : : :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : : : IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFF, Successor-in-Interest to Plaintiff, vs. DEFENDANT, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION ORDER Case 508-cv-00434-HL Document 56 Filed 08/25/09 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION LAVERNE DIANE TILLEY, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 508-CV-434

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. BUCKWALTER, J. May 8, 2002

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. BUCKWALTER, J. May 8, 2002 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 01-0272 M. ROBERT ULLMAN, Defendant. MEMORANDUM BUCKWALTER, J. May

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 12-CV-1210

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 12-CV-1210 First American Title Insurance Company v. Westbury Bank Doc. 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-CV-1210 WESTBURY

More information

2:09-cv-14271-LPZ-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 06/24/10 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

2:09-cv-14271-LPZ-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 06/24/10 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 2:09-cv-14271-LPZ-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 06/24/10 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09-14271 HON.

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-3233 WILLIAM O. MEEK, Petitioner, v.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS HEARTLAND SURGICAL ) SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 05-2164-MLB-DWB ) MIDWEST DIVISION, INC. d/b/a ) HCA MIDWEST

More information

Case 1:11-mc-00512-GK-DAR Document 12 Filed 01/11/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:11-mc-00512-GK-DAR Document 12 Filed 01/11/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:11-mc-00512-GK-DAR Document 12 Filed 01/11/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, -v.- DELOITTE TOUCHE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA PROTOCOL FOR THE USE OF INTERACTIVE VIDEO CONFERENCING CIVIL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA PROTOCOL FOR THE USE OF INTERACTIVE VIDEO CONFERENCING CIVIL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA PROTOCOL FOR THE USE OF INTERACTIVE VIDEO CONFERENCING CIVIL The following provisions apply to civil matters: 1. General Provisions The court may conduct

More information

CASE NO. 1D13-5821. Adrian R. Bridges of Michles & Booth, P.A., Pensacola, for Respondent.

CASE NO. 1D13-5821. Adrian R. Bridges of Michles & Booth, P.A., Pensacola, for Respondent. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO.

More information

Case 1:06-cv-01143-OWW -SMS Document 80 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:06-cv-01143-OWW -SMS Document 80 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 6 Case :0-cv-0-OWW -SMS Document 0 Filed 0//0 Page of 0 0 Clark J. Burnham, State Bar No. 0 Andrew R. Shalauta, State Bar No. Michelle M. Meyers, State Bar No. BURNHAM BROWN 0 Harrison Street, th Floor Oakland,

More information

CASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG)

CASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG) CASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG) State of Minnesota ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Robert B. Beale, Rebecca S.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Goodridge v. Hewlett Packard Company Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARLES GOODRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-07-4162 HEWLETT-PACKARD

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) [Cite as Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Dvorak, 2014-Ohio-4652.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee

More information

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division IV Opinion by: JUDGE TERRY Casebolt and Webb, JJ., concur. Announced: January 24, 2008

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division IV Opinion by: JUDGE TERRY Casebolt and Webb, JJ., concur. Announced: January 24, 2008 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 06CA2332 El Paso County District Court No. 05CV2108 Honorable Kirk S. Samelson, Judge Douglas McDaniels and Barbara McDaniels, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.

More information

14-13009-scc Doc 26 Filed 12/17/14 Entered 12/17/14 16:02:28 Main Document Pg 1 of 10

14-13009-scc Doc 26 Filed 12/17/14 Entered 12/17/14 16:02:28 Main Document Pg 1 of 10 Pg 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X In re SOVEREIGN ASSETS LTD., Debtor in Foreign Proceeding. X Chapter 15 Case No. 14-13009 ORDER GRANTING (1) RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM OPINION 2

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM OPINION 2 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE: Specialty Products Holdings Corp., et al. Bankruptcy No. 10-11780 Debtor(s) 1 Chapter 11 (Jointly Administered) Related to Doc.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 2:08-cv-02601-MLB-KMH Document 41 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS HIMOINSA POWER SYSTEMS, INC. ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No.

More information

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. (FILED: March 30, 2011) IN RE: ALL INDIVIDUAL KUGEL : Master Docket No. PC 08-9999 MESH CASES :

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. (FILED: March 30, 2011) IN RE: ALL INDIVIDUAL KUGEL : Master Docket No. PC 08-9999 MESH CASES : STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. (FILED: March 30, 2011) SUPERIOR COURT IN RE: ALL INDIVIDUAL KUGEL : Master Docket No. PC 08-9999 MESH CASES : BARBARA BROKAW : : v. : C.A.

More information

Rules for Bankruptcy Cases, B.E. 2542 (1999) Translation

Rules for Bankruptcy Cases, B.E. 2542 (1999) Translation Rules for Bankruptcy Cases, B.E. 2542 (1999) Translation By virtue of Section 19 of the Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Bankruptcy Court B.E. 2542 (1999) the Chief Justice of the Central

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 23, 2014 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 23, 2014 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 23, 2014 Session KENNETH D. HARDY v. TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 09C4164 Carol Soloman,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND JANICE A. ST. GERMAIN, : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. 12-113S : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Plaintiff

More information

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 10 CVS 8327 OUT OF THE BOX DEVELOPERS, LLC, d/b/a OTB CONSULTING, Plaintiff, v. LOGICBIT CORP., FRANCISCO A. RIVERA,

More information

4:13-cv-10877-MAG-LJM Doc # 16 Filed 07/03/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 126 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

4:13-cv-10877-MAG-LJM Doc # 16 Filed 07/03/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 126 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 4:13-cv-10877-MAG-LJM Doc # 16 Filed 07/03/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 126 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MICHAEL BUSSARD, v. Plaintiff, SHERMETA, ADAMS AND VON ALLMEN,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STIPULATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STIPULATION 1 1 1 1 1 BOURNE INTERNATIONAL, INC., v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Plaintiff, CHET STOLER; SOUTH SEAS TRADING CO., Defendants. STIPULATION NO. C0-0RJB PROTECTIVE ORDER

More information