Search for: "Doe Defendants 1-5"
Results 1 - 20
of 15,549
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Nov 2012, 6:10 pm
John Does 1-5 Court Case Number: 1:12-cv-01680-SEB-TABFile Date: Thursday, November 15, 2012Plaintiff: Malibu Media LLCPlaintiff Counsel: Paul J. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 1:08 pm
Does 1-5, a BitTorrent download case pending in Manhattan before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, John Doe #4 filed his reply memo today, further supporting his motion to quash the subpoena, and to sever and dismiss the claim against him. [read post]
7 Jan 2024, 7:27 pm
A165198; Filed 1/5/20242024 WL 64082 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.) [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 9:03 am
Does 1-5.August 24, 2012, Decision var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true}; Ray Beckerman, PC [read post]
1 Dec 2007, 10:28 am
Does 1-9, the Columbus, Ohio, case targeting Ohio State University, where three defendants --John Does #1, 5, and #9 -- have made motions, the Court has stayed enforcement of its ex parte order.Also we have obtained copies of the motion papers served on behalf of John Does #5 and 9. [read post]
7 Jul 2012, 10:21 am
Does 1-5, a BitTorrent downloading case, the plaintiff has filed papers opposing defendant John Doe #4's motion to dismiss, sever, and quash.The motion papers include a declaration by a "forensic investigator", employed by a company in Germany, who makes claims about the technology he uses.Plaintiff's memorandum of law in oppositionDeclaration of Tobias FieserExhibit AExhibit B Commentary & discussion:Slashdot var addthis_config… [read post]
6 Dec 2008, 5:29 pm
Does 1-5, a case in the Western District of Michigan targeting students at Northern Michigan University, the Magistrate Judge has denied reconsideration of his decision denying the motion by pro se defendant John Doe #5 to quash the RIAA's subpoena.December 2, 2008, Order of Magistrate Judge denying motion for reconsideration*-->* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation-->Commentary &… [read post]
27 Feb 2008, 11:18 am
Does 1-5, the case targeting 5 Northern Michigan University students, the judge has denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and quash the subpoena.February 22, 2008, order denying motion to dismiss and to quash** Document published online at Internet Law & RegulationCommentary & discussion:[]-->--> -->-->[][][][]-->Keywords: digital copyright law online internet law legal download… [read post]
14 Feb 2008, 2:37 am
Does 1-5, where the District Judge -- Hon. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 10:38 am
The post Does a No Contact Order Apply While the Defendant Is in Jail? [read post]
2 Jul 2011, 8:30 am
John Does 1-5U.S. [read post]
5 May 2023, 8:11 am
[FedNewsNet] Does the National Cybersecurity Strategy spell the end of the government market for commercial software? [read post]
9 May 2017, 7:43 am
Unifrax I LLC, 1-14-cv-01250 (DED May 5, 2017, Order) (Andrews, USDJ) [read post]
10 Jan 2008, 1:59 am
The motion of Ohio State University students "John Does 5 and 9", in Arista v. [read post]
18 Feb 2009, 10:49 am
Does 1-16, an upstate case in which SUNY Albany students are being targeted, the Magistrate Judge has denied the motion by four (4) defendants to quash the subpoena.The Magistrate Judge pointed out in his decision that there were 5 issues, and that he had decided all 5 issues in favor of the plaintiffs.The defendants have 10 days to file objections.February 18, 2009, Decision of Magistrate Judge*-->* Document published online at Internet… [read post]
26 Jun 2008, 11:30 am
May 5, 2008)(N.D. [read post]
26 Oct 2022, 7:59 am
Case citation: Does 1-6 v. [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 7:10 am
Nevertheless, plaintiff demonstrates that defendant has 'engaged in a course of conduct... show[ing] a preparedness and willingness to enforce his patent rights.' Indeed, defendant has: (1) identified the [patent-in-suit]; (2) asserted he is the owner of the [patent]; (3) identified plaintiff’s competing product . . . (4) asserted that plaintiff’s 'design' . . . is 'a copy of the [product covered by the patent]'; and (5)… [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 10:04 am
Escort, Inc., et. al., 1-12-cv-00066 (IDD August 5, 2013, Order) (Winmill, J.). [read post]
18 Jul 2022, 9:09 am
The case procedures spanned two years, from 2014 to 2016, during which the Commission conducted its investigation and met with the defendants to discuss the matter which ultimately led to the agreed upon settlement and no disputes over whether: (1) the Texas District Court had jurisdiction over the case; or (2) the defendants received actual notice or an opportunity to be heard.Defendants’ 2021 claims. [read post]
