IP Verse

Askan V. Faro Technologies, Inc. - 6:24-cv-01674

Explore the details of the Askan V. Faro Technologies, Inc. case under case number 6:24-cv-01674 involving a cause of action for Patent Infringement. Review key information about the parties involved, the patents in question, and the docket entries.

Case Details

Case Number
6:24-cv-01674
Filing Date
Sep 15, 2024
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Nature of Suit
Patent

Parties Involved in the Case

The following parties are involved in this case, with their respective legal representatives for the case.

NameRepresented By
Faro Technologies, Inc. -
Yoldas Askan -

Patents Involved in the Case

Patents not found - set an alert to get notified when patents are added.

Docket Entries

The Docket Entries section provides a chronological list of all significant filings and court actions in this case.

DateDocket EntryType

Set alerts for critical docket entry

Oct 7, 2024ENDORSED ORDER granting 9 Motion to Stay. Upon consideration of the circumstances, the Court finds that a stay is warranted. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (holding district courts have broad discretion to determine whether to stay proceedings before them). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to administratively close the case. The case is hereby STAYED pending resolution of Plaintiff Yoldas Askan's appeal in Case No. 6:23-cv-920-PGB-DCI. The parties shall provide written status reports every ninety (90) days hereafter or upon the occurrence of any event that would result in the stay being lifted. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 10/7/2024. (ABD) (Entered: 10/07/2024)PACER Document
Oct 15, 2024ENDORSED ORDER striking 25 Emergency Objection to Order Granting Motion to Stay. Plaintiff's Objection sets forth no legal basis for the Court to reconsider its 24 Order staying the case. Moreover, Plaintiff's Objection fails to comply with various Local Rules. See Local Rules 1.01(d)(10), 1.09, 3.01. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 10/15/2024. (ABD) (Entered: 10/15/2024)PACER Document
Oct 16, 2024ENDORSED ORDER denying 27 Emergency Motion to Reopen Case. The Court does not deem a response to the aforementioned Motion necessary. First, Plaintiff has raised no issue that approximates the magnitude necessary to style a motion as an emergency. Plaintiff is cautioned to only caption motions as emergencies when the circumstances genuinely warrant it. Failure to comply with this advisement may result in the imposition of sanctions. Moreover, Plaintiff does not set forth a sufficient legal basis for the Court to reconsider its prior 24 Order staying the instant case. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 10/16/2024. (ABD) (Entered: 10/16/2024)PACER Document
Oct 23, 2024NOTICE canceling IDEAL Case Management Conference hearing scheduled for 10/23/2024 (TNP) (Entered: 10/23/2024)PACER Document
Nov 14, 2024ENDORSED ORDER granting 31 Motion to Strike. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to strike 30 Motion to Reopen. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 11/14/2024. (ABD) (Entered: 11/14/2024)PACER Document
Nov 15, 2024ENDORSED ORDER denying 33 Motion to Reopen Case and Lift Stay. The Court does not deem a response to the aforementioned Motion necessary. The Court recently denied Plaintiff's request that the Court reopen the case and lift the stay. See 28 Order. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 11/15/2024. (ABD) (Entered: 11/15/2024)PACER Document
Dec 12, 2024ENDORSED ORDER denying 37 Motion to Strike. The aforementioned Motion fails to comply with various Local Rules. See Local Rules 1.01(d)(10), 3.01(a), 3.01(g). Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 12/12/2024. (ABD) (Entered: 12/12/2024)PACER Document
Dec 12, 2024ENDORSED ORDER denying 39 Motion to Strike and Emergency Motion for Request of Voluntary Recusal of Judge Byron. Again, Plaintiff has raised no issue that approximates the magnitude necessary to style a motion as an emergency. Plaintiff is cautioned to only caption motions as emergencies when the circumstances genuinely warrant it. Considering the Court's prior warnings, failure to comply with this advisement in the future will result in the imposition of sanctions. Moreover, Plaintiff's 39 Motion fails to comply with various Local Rules. See Local Rules 1.01(d)(10), 3.01(a). Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 12/12/2024. (ABD) (Entered: 12/12/2024)PACER Document