IP Verse

Liquid Rarity Exchange, Llc V. Ozone Networks. Inc. - 1:24-cv-07651

Liquid Rarity Exchange, Llc V. Ozone Networks. Inc. (Case No. 1:24-cv-07651), filed on Oct 8, 2024 in the District Court, S.D. New York involving patent infringement. This case involves patent infringement claims between the parties. Explore details about the litigants, key filings, and major docket updates.

Case Details

Case Number
1:24-cv-07651
Filing Date
Oct 8, 2024
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Court
District Court, S.D. New York
Nature of Suit
Patent

Parties Involved

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

NameRepresented By
Liquid Rarity Exchange, LLC -
Ozone Networks. Inc d/b/a OpenSea -

Patents Involved

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

Feb 25, 2025 PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material...The Court expects the parties to comply with the terms of the protective order they have mutually agreed to. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 2/25/2025) (sgz)PACER Document
Apr 7, 2025 ORDER granting 51 Letter Motion for Discovery. GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 51. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 4/7/2025) (sgz)PACER Document
May 9, 2025 ORDER OF DISMISSAL: The Court having been advised at ECF No. 56 that all claims asserted herein have been settled in principle, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled action be and is hereby DISMISSED and discontinued without costs, and without preju dice to the right to reopen the action within sixty days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated.To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed by the aforementioned deadline; any application to reopen filed thereafter ma y be denied solely on that basis. Further, requests to extend the deadline to reopen are unlikely to be granted. If the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they must submit the set tlement agreement to the Court by the deadline to reopen to be "so ordered" by the Court. Per Paragraph 9.B of the Court's Individual Practices for Civil Cases, unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record. Any pending motions are moot. All conferences are canceled. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 5/9/2025) (sgz)PACER Document