1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. ROYAL APPLIANCE MANUFACTURING CO. v. FELLOWES, INC.
 

ROYAL APPLIANCE MANUFACTURING CO. v. FELLOWES, INC.

Case No. 1:10-CV-2604.

ROYAL APPLIANCE MANUFACTURING CO., et al., Plaintiffs, v. FELLOWES, INC. Defendant.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

August 27, 2013.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Royal Appliance Manufacturing Co., Plaintiff, represented by Rex W. Miller, II , Hahn, Loeser & Parks, Deborah A. Coleman , Hahn, Loeser & Parks, R. Eric Gaum , Hahn, Loeser & Parks & Michael J. Garvin , Hahn, Loeser & Parks.

Techtronics Industries Co. Ltd, Plaintiff, represented by Rex W. Miller, II , Hahn, Loeser & Parks, Deborah A. Coleman , Hahn, Loeser & Parks, R. Eric Gaum , Hahn, Loeser & Parks & Michael J. Garvin , Hahn, Loeser & Parks.

Fellowes, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin C. Sasse , Tucker Ellis, Christopher K. Dorsey , Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, Harry D. Cornett, Jr. , Tucker Ellis, Robert M. Fuhrer , Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman & William P. Atkins , Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.

Fellowes, Inc., Counter-Claimant, represented by Benjamin C. Sasse , Tucker Ellis, Christopher K. Dorsey , Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, Harry D. Cornett, Jr. , Tucker Ellis, Robert M. Fuhrer , Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman & William P. Atkins , Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.

Royal Appliance Manufacturing Co., Counter-Defendant, represented by Rex W. Miller, II , Hahn, Loeser & Parks, R. Eric Gaum , Hahn, Loeser & Parks & Michael J. Garvin , Hahn, Loeser & Parks.

Techtronics Industries Co. Ltd, Counter-Defendant, represented by Rex W. Miller, II , Hahn, Loeser & Parks, R. Eric Gaum , Hahn, Loeser & Parks & Michael J. Garvin , Hahn, Loeser & Parks.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DONALD C. NUGENT, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Final Invalidity Contentions. Plaintiffs seek leave to amend the invalidity contentions asserted against U.S. Patent No. 8,020,796, upon which certain of Defendant's counterclaims are based. (ECF #86, 92). Defendant opposes the request amendment as untimely. (ECF #90). The counterclaims addressing the `796 Patent were last...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases