IP Verse

Web 2.0 Technologies, Llc V. Nulab, Inc. - 1:23-cv-02589

Explore the details of the Web 2.0 Technologies, Llc V. Nulab, Inc. case under case number 1:23-cv-02589 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-02589
Filing Date
Mar 27, 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
Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC -
Nulab, 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

Mar 29, 2023 ORDER: On March 27, 2023, Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC ("Web 2.0") filed the complaint in the above action, Dkt. 1, as related to Web 2. 0 Technologies, Inc. v. Nu/ab, Inc., No. 23 Civ. 339 (PAE). Upon the Court's review, and as r epresented in Web 2.0's statement of relatedness, Dkt. 6, these two cases appear identical save a corrected typo in Web 2.0's name. If the Court's understanding is correct that Web 2.0 filed a new case to correct an error in its name, the Court advises that, to further the goals of efficiency and economy, Web 2.0 may either (1) voluntarily dismiss the earlier, incorrectly captioned action at No. 23 Civ. 339, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), or (2) file an amended complaint in that earlier action, correcting its name, and voluntarily dismiss the above-captioned action under Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i). (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/29/2023) (rro)PACER Document
Jun 21, 2023 ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff shall file any amended complaint by July 11, 2023. No further opportunities to amend will ordinarily be granted. If plaintiff does amend, by July 11, 2023, defendant shall: (1) file an answer ; (2) file a new motion to dismiss; or (3) submit a letter to the Court, copying plaintiff, stating that they rely on the previously filed motion to dismiss. It is further ORDERED that if no amended complaint is filed, plaintiff shall serve any oppo sition to the motion to dismiss by July 11, 2023. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be served by July 18, 2023. At the time any reply is served, the moving party shall supply the Court with a courtesy copy of all motion papers by attaching the m as PDF files to a single email addressed to [email protected]. The Court will determine later, after receipt of plaintiff's anticipated brief opposing a motion to dismiss the current or amended complaint, whether to schedule oral argument. SO ORDERED. ( Amended Pleadings due by 7/11/2023., Motions due by 7/11/2023.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 6/21/2023) (tg)PACER Document
Aug 2, 2023 ORDER: The Court having been advised that all claims asserted herein have been settled inprinciple, Dkt. 25, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled action is hereby dismissed anddiscontinued without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within 30 daysof the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated.To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed within 30 days of this Order; anyapplication to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. Further, if the partieswish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement,they must submit the settlement agreement to the Court within the same 30-day period to be "soordered" by the Court. Per Paragraph 4(C) of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices forCivil Cases, unless the Court's orders otherwise, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce asettlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record. Any prop osed order approvingthe settlement agreement that seeks the Court's continued jurisdiction should either (1) expresslystate that the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement or (2) incorporate the terms ofthe settlement agreement in the order.The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 8/2/2023) (rro)PACER Document