IP Verse

Ortiz & Associates Consulting, Llc V. Lexmark International, Inc. - 1:23-cv-01646

Explore the details of the Ortiz & Associates Consulting, Llc V. Lexmark International, Inc. case under case number 1:23-cv-01646 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
1:23-cv-01646
Filing Date
Jun 28, 2023
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
Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC -
Lexmark International, Inc. -

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

Dec 5, 2023NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Jacob W.S. Schneider on behalf of Lexmark International, Inc.Attorney Jacob W.S. Schneider added to party Lexmark International, Inc.(pty:dft) (Schneider, Jacob) (Entered: 12/05/2023)PACER Document
Dec 6, 2023AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement against Lexmark International, Inc., filed by Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Ramey, William) (Entered: 12/06/2023)PACER Document
Dec 6, 2023AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement against Lexmark International, Inc., filed by Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Ramey, William) (Entered: 12/06/2023)Attachment
Dec 6, 2023AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement against Lexmark International, Inc., filed by Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Ramey, William) (Entered: 12/06/2023)Attachment
Dec 7, 2023MOTION for Order to [AGREED] Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order in a Patent Case by Plaintiff Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Ramey, William) (Entered: 12/07/2023)Attachment
Dec 7, 2023MEMORANDUM regarding 27 MOTION for Order to [AGREED] Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order in a Patent Case filed by Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. By Judge Nina Y. Wang on 12/07/2023. Text Only Entry (nywlc5, ) (Entered: 12/07/2023)PACER Document
Dec 8, 2023MINUTE ORDER: This matter is before the Court upon the filing of the 26 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement. "It is well established that an amended complaint ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect." Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, any motion to dismiss directed at a superseded pleading is moot. See Brumfiel v. U.S. Bank, No. 12-cv-02716-WJM, 2013 WL 12246738, at *1 (D. Colo. May 16, 2013). For this reason, the 19 Lexmark International, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED as moot. Additionally, the Local Rules provide that a party that files an amended pleading "shall file a separate notice of filing the amended pleading and shall attach as an exhibit a copy of the amended pleading which strikes through (e.g., strikes through) the text to be deleted and underlines (e.g., underlines) the text to be added." D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(a). No such notice or red-lined version of the amended pleading has been filed. Accordingly, on or before December 15, 2023, Plaintiff SHALL FILE the appropriate documents required by Local Rule 15.1(a). By Judge Nina Y. Wang on 12/08/2023. Text Only Entry (nywlc5, ) (Entered: 12/08/2023)PACER Document
Dec 11, 2023NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading re 29 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,,, 26 Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit)(Ramey, William) (Entered: 12/11/2023)PACER Document
Dec 11, 2023NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading re 29 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,,, 26 Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit)(Ramey, William) (Entered: 12/11/2023)Attachment
Dec 11, 2023NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading re 29 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,,, 26 Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit)(Ramey, William) (Entered: 12/11/2023)Attachment
Dec 11, 2023NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading re 29 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,,, 26 Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit)(Ramey, William) (Entered: 12/11/2023)Attachment
Dec 19, 2023Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 26 Amended Complaint, 20 MOTION for Sanctions Rule 11, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 MOTION for Sanctions Rule 11 by Defendant Lexmark International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Simpson, Amy) (Entered: 12/19/2023)Attachment
Dec 19, 2023MINUTE ORDER: The 33 Joint Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED for good cause shown. Defendant shall respond to 26 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on or before January 12, 2024. Plaintiff shall respond to 20 Lexmark International, Inc.'s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions on or before January 24, 2024. By Judge Nina Y. Wang on 12/19/2023. (nywlc5, ) (Entered: 12/19/2023)PACER Document
Jan 11, 2024Unopposed MOTION to Stay by Plaintiff Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Ramey, William) (Entered: 01/11/2024)Attachment
Jan 11, 2024MEMORANDUM regarding 35 Unopposed MOTION to Stay filed by Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. By Judge Nina Y. Wang on 01/11/2024. Text Only Entry (nywlc5, ) (Entered: 01/11/2024)PACER Document
Jan 17, 2024MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on 1/17/2024, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART the 35 Motion to Stay. The deadlines in this matter are extended by 30 days, as follows: Deadline to join parties is 2/12/2024. Deadline to serve infringement contentions is 2/12/2024. Deadline to serve responses to infringement contentions is 3/25/2024. Deadline to serve invalidity contentions is 3/25/2024. Deadline to serve responses to invalidity contentions is 5/6/2024. Deadline for parties to exchange lists of proposed claim construction terms is 6/3/2024. Deadline to file Joint Disputed Claim Terms Chart is 7/1/2024. Deadline to file opening claim construction briefs is 7/29/2024. Deadline to file response to opening claim construction briefs is 8/19/2024. Deadline to file replies to opening claim construction briefs is 8/26/2024. The court notes that discovery in this matter is not stayed in its entirety. Text Only Entry (sbplc3) (Entered: 01/17/2024)PACER Document
Feb 16, 2024NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of Case by Plaintiff Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (Ramey, William) (Entered: 02/16/2024)PACER Document
Feb 16, 2024MINUTE ORDER: Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC's 38 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed on February 16, 2024. Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is appropriate because Defendant Lexmark International, Inc. has not answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. However, it is clear that the voluntary dismissal of this action does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction to consider sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990) (holding that district courts may enforce Rule 11 even after the plaintiff has filed a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)). Despite the fact that Plaintiff referenced a settlement in its previously filed 35 Unopposed Motion to Stay All Deadlines, it is not clear based on the record before the Court whether Defendant seeks to proceed with its 20 Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, or whether such motion is appropriately denied as moot. Accordingly, no later than February 21, 2024, Defendant shall file a Notice with the Court informing it of Defendant's position with respect to the pending 20 Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. Failure to file such Notice shall be construed by this Court as consent to deny the Motion as moot. By Judge Nina Y. Wang on 02/16/2024. Text Only Entry (nywlc5, ) (Entered: 02/16/2024)PACER Document
Feb 26, 2024MINUTE ORDER: Consistent with the Court's February 16, 2024, Minute Order, see [Doc. 39], the 20 Lexmark International, Inc.'s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is DENIED AS MOOT and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. By Judge Nina Y. Wang on 02/26/2024.(nywlc5, ) (Entered: 02/26/2024)PACER Document
Feb 26, 2024Civil Case Terminated pursuant to 38 notice of dismissal on 2/16/2024. Text Only Entry (norlin, ) (Entered: 02/26/2024)PACER Document