Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

11-1768 - Peerless Industries, Inc. v. Crimson AV, LLC


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
11-1768 - Peerless Industries, Inc. v. Crimson AV, LLC
June 9, 2011
PDF | More
MOTION by Defendants Crimson AV, LLC, Vladimir Gleyzer for judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.50 (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C)(Pioli, Victor)
June 10, 2011
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 6/10/2011:Mailed notice(wp, )
June 27, 2012
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 6/27/12: (vkd, )
August 24, 2012
PDF | More
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 8/24/2012: Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings [#73] is granted. Counts IV and VII of the third amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants' request for costs and attorney's fees is denied. Status hearing is set for 11/27/2012 at 8:30 a.m. See statement below.Mailed notice(mad, )
March 22, 2013
PDF | More
Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 3/22/2013:Mailed notice(mad, )
May 8, 2013
PDF | More
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 5/8/13: Defendants' motion to compel the production of documents from Marshall Brown is denied without prejudice [dkt. 198]. Defendants' motion to depose Gennady Plavnik is granted [dkt. 214]. Defendants' motion to compel documents is denied, without prejudice [dkt. 213]. (For further details see minute order). Mailed notice(vkd, )
May 8, 2013
PDF | More
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 5/8/13:Defendants Crimson AV, LLC and Vladimire Gleyzer raises two related matters in its Motion for Sanctions [dkt. 212] and its Supplement to Motion for Sanctions [dkt. 215]. The first motion for sanctions is based on the allegedly improper instructions given by plaintiff Peerless Industries, Inc. ("Peerless") to its designated Rule 30(b)(6) witness Nicholas Belacore. The second, supplement to its motion for sanctions, is based on Peerless' failure to produce certain documents relating to Peerless' trade secrets claim until after Mr. Belacore's deposition. For the reasons stated below, both motions are granted in part. We agree that Peerless improperly instructed its witness not to answer questions relating to its trade secrets claims and should have produced the documents relating to that claim prior to that deposition. The court's remedy for both discovery violations is the same: reconvene Mr. Belacore's deposition at Peerless' expense so that questions concerning Peerless' claims for trade secrets violations can be answered. (For further detail see minute order). Mailed notice(vkd, )
May 14, 2013
PDF | More
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 5/14/13: Defendants have filed a motion for an in-camera inspection of a particular document inadvertently produced by plaintiff [dkts. 230, 231]. Defendants seek a ruling that this document is discoverable, and not to be returned to plaintiff, because of the crime-fraud exception. We deny that request and find plaintiff's inadvertent disclosure did not waive the attorney-client privilege. (For further detail see minute order). Mailed notice (vkd, )
October 1, 2013
PDF | More
Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 10/1/2013: Crimson's motion for summary judgment of nonfringement 134 is denied. Peerless's motion for summary judgment is granted as to infringement 170 and is moot as to validity. A separate order will issue regarding the outstanding invalidity contentions. A status hearing is set for October 8, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.Mailed notice(mad, )
October 24, 2013
PDF | More
ORDER Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 10/24/2013: Defendant Crimson AV, LLC filed a renewed motion to compel document discovery and to compel the deposition of Marshall Brown [dkt. 333]. For the reasons outlined, we grant Crimsons motion. Plaintiff to produce all documents on or before 11/1/13. Mr. Browns deposition is to be scheduled following this production, on or before 11/15/13. [For further details see order.] Mailed notice (np, )
November 14, 2013
PDF | More
Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 11/14/2013: defendants' objections 257 are overruled and Judge Cox's ruling of May 14, 2013 237 is adopted. Defendants are to return the memorandum to Peerless without delay.Mailed notice(mad, )
November 27, 2013
PDF | More
Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 11/27/2013: Defendants' motion for reconsideration 349 is denied.Mailed notice(mad, )
February 27, 2014
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This matter comes before the Court on Crimson's renewed (twice) motion for sanctions [dkt. 381]. For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that the district judge deny this motion with the one exception set out in the Order. Specific written objections to this report and recommendation may be served and filed within 14 business days from the date that this order is served. Failure to file objections with the district court within the specified time will result in a waiver of the right to appeal all findings, factual, and legal made by this Court in the report and recommendation. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 2/27/2014. Mailed notice (np, )
March 13, 2014
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This matter comes before the Court on Peerless' renewed motion for sanctions. For the reasons stated in the order, the Court recommends that the District Court grant the motion in part and deny in part. Specific written objections to this report and recommendation may be served and filed within 14 business days from the date that this order is served. Failure to file objections with the district court within the specified time will result in a waiver of the right to appeal all findings, factual, and legal made by this Court in the report and recommendation. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 3/13/2014. Mailed notice (np, )
July 14, 2014
PDF | More
Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 7/14/2014: Defendants' objections (dkts. 402, 399) to Magistrate Judge Susan Cox's Reports and Recommendations of February 27, 2014 (dkt. 395) and March 13, 2014 (dkt. 398) on the parties' motions for sanctions (dkts. 321, 381) are overruled in part and sustained in part. The court adopts the March 13, 2014 R&R in whole with the addition that defendants shall pay Peerless its reasonable expenses and attorney's fees associated with its motion for sanctions (dkt. 321) and reply brief (dkt. 361), and its response to Crimson's objections to the March 13 R&R (dkt. 408). The court adopts the February 27, 2014 R&R in part but orders Peerless to pay defendants' reasonable expenses and attorney's fees associated with their November 22, 2013 motion to compel (dkt. 370), their December 3, 2013 appearance before the magistrate judge on that motion (dkt. 377), their motion for sanctions (dkt. 381) and reply brief (dkt. 392), their January 24, 2014 appearance before the magistrate judge on that motion (dkt. 387), and their objections (dkt. 399) and reply brief (dkt. 405) to the February 27 R&R. The parties are directed to work together as set out in Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 54.3(d) to endeavor to resolve the expenses and fees. Mailed notice(mad, )
March 17, 2015
PDF | More
OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 3/17/2015. defendant's motion for summary judgment of invalidity or, in the alternative, unenforceability of the '850 patent (dkt. 409) is denied. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Counts II and III of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (dkt. 426) is granted as to Count II and denied as to Count III. Peerless's motion to strike Gleyzer's expert testimony (dkt. 448) is denied as moot. As stated, the court has denied Crimson's motion for summary judgment on its invalidity defenses as well as Peerless's trade secrets claim. Because Peerless did not respond with a counter-motion for summary judgment in its favor on these issues,11 the question remains whether Crimson's evidence is sufficient to go to the jury on any of the claims, particularly considering the high burden of proof resting on Crimson's invalidity defenses. The parties 11 Peerless may have believed the court would not entertain such a motion in light of its earlier ruling that Peerless does not need to prove its patent valid. Although similar in concept, a motion for summary judgment on the invalidity defenses would have been useful, though not necessary. 28 should discuss this issue before the status hearing and should consider whether a settlement conference or mediation would be a better alternative for bringing this case to a close. [For further details see Opinion and Order.] Mailed notice(cdh, )
June 16, 2016
PDF | More
MOTION by Defendants Crimson AV, LLC, Vladimir Gleyzer for judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D, # (5) Exhibit E, # (6) Exhibit F, # (7) Exhibit G, # (8) Exhibit H)(Marconi, Joseph)
June 22, 2016
PDF | More
MOTION by Plaintiff Peerless Industries, Inc. for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Montei, Richard)
June 23, 2016
PDF | More
MOTION by Defendants Crimson AV, LLC, Vladimir Gleyzer for judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 (Marconi, Joseph)
March 31, 2017
PDF | More
Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 3/31/2017: Plaintiff's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law 623 is granted with respect as to obviousness and best mode and denied as to anticipation, and its motion for a new trial is denied. The court denies without prejudice plaintiff's request for a new trial to determine damages. The case will be called for status on April 18, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Before that time counsel shall meet to discuss how to bring this case to conclusion as soon as practicable, including the need for a trial on damages and the possibility of settlement.Mailed notice(mad, )
May 23, 2018
PDF | More
(8) Exhibit H, # (9) Exhibit I, # (10) Exhibit J, # (11) Exhibit K, # (12) Exhibit L, # (13) Exhibit M, # (14) Exhibit N, # (15) Exhibit O, # (16) Exhibit P)(Ryndak, Peter)MOTION by Defendant Crimson AV, LLC for judgment Renewed Rule 50 Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D, # (5) Exhibit E, # (6) Exhibit F, # (7) Exhibit G, #