Smart Parts Patent Will Destroy Paintball! - Read!

[poolshark5226]

The whole post from "this was taken from DOc Kickel's site and is not confirmed." on was quoted from a post on Doc's site. SHouldve made that clearer I guess

[shartley]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
The simple thing Shartley is that this is a big deal no matter what. Whether Smart Parts wins or loses every company now has to prepare for the possibility of them winning. As Tom already said, they have been working on the ULE in preparation for this, and I doubt their the only ones. Now that this is (apparently) really picking up steam various companies are going to have to rethink their entire strategy to compensate for a possible SP win. Waiting for all the facts to come in simply isn't an option when dealing with the solvency of your company. They will plan and adjust, to varying degrees, in case Smart Parts wins. Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

BTW - that hardly means the industry will collapse, it actually means just the opposite. When this is all over (provided the proper planning and insight is applied) I expect the industry will, for the most part, survive and thrive.

Originally posted by Albinonewt


No more of that Uranium gate nonsense.

Being wrong doesn't always mean lying. They could simply have been misinformed, or have drawn incorrect conclusions.

Also VERY true.

[fenris69]

quit making sense, it's not welcome here!


all that you just wrote is damned obvious for a lot of ppl I'd assume(perhaps not...) but individuals will want to scream about it anyway, let em. IF some of them get together and do something (I signed that online petition just for the hell of it) then great, but does it matter? disregard that... no more rhetorical statements from me :P

[rjcpaintball]

Be smarter than smart parts

Well first off e-markers are **POOF**...period. Why the hell do you need to throw that much paint anyways? With that said.

If it were me, and by all means I am not a master businessman since I haven't made my millions yet, but I would stop making on/off switches then. **POOF**

Take out a patent for a different kind of switch. Be "smart parts" about it. Call it something else. Like alive and dead. Something like that. Or take a patent for a 3 setting switch. On, off, temporary. Just something ambiguous that doesn't do anything really. It's then technically a different product.

Besides, the Chinese will end up making everything eventually...didn't you know?

Peace everyone....and my Piranha rocks!

Your new so this is only a warning, we don't swear around here in any way shape or form.

[Evil Bob]

H&K G11 is another electronicly fired weapon.

-Evil Bob

[1stdeadeye]

OMG!

Originally posted by Evil Bob
H&K G11 is another electronicly fired weapon.

-Evil Bob

Oh my god! That gun looks just like a Cylone's from BattleStar Gallactica. *shows my age*

BTW, anyone see the previews for the new Battlestar Gallatica yet? Coming Dec 2003 to SciFi!

[rjcpaintball]

Oh hell yeah I saw those previews too. That new show looks AWWWWESOME!!!! Starbuck was the pimp daddy before he was on A-Team. BTW I am 28. I would love for a new Buck Rogers too.

[Ov3rmind]

Re: Be smarter than smart parts

Originally posted by rjcpaintball
Well first off e-markers are gay...period. Why the hell do you need to throw that much paint anyways? With that said.

If it were me, and by all means I am not a master businessman since I haven't made my millions yet, but I would stop making on/off switches then. F-it! F smart parts then. I wouldn't pay them sh&t.

Take out a patent for a different kind of switch. Be "smart parts" about it. Call it something else. Like alive and dead. Something like that. Or take a patent for a 3 setting switch. On, off, temporary. Just something ambiguous that doesn't do anything really. It's then technically a different product.

Besides, the Chinese will end up making everything eventually...didn't you know?

Peace everyone....and my Piranha rocks!

You've never played a tournament.... period. The ROF is extremely useful in certain situations, and it also allows for the use of ACEs and a few other neato inventions. You also did an excellent job making yourself sound ignorant on top of avoiding the swear filter.

[rjcpaintball]

I do believe my statement was an opinion so I don't see how that could be construed as ignorance. And because you believe I haven't played tournament ball I must be ignorant. That's an interesting assumption on your part...when in fact I have a genious IQ. Interesting. In what situation would it not be more advantagous to hurl 15+ balls a second, aside from the fact that you have only <15 balls in your hopper? Anyways, I'm not getting into a flame war I have more important things to do. Later bater.

[ScatterPlot]

Could someone please tell me what exactly the new patent says? Cause all i heard of was a "switch" thing and now Im all curious about it. Thanks!
Bert

[icegod]

Originally posted by rjcpaintball
I do believe my statement was an opinion so I don't see how that could be construed as ignorance. And because you believe I haven't played tournament ball I must be ignorant. That's an interesting assumption on your part...when in fact I have a genious IQ. Interesting. In what situation would it not be more advantagous to hurl 15+ balls a second, aside from the fact that you have only <15 balls in your hopper? Anyways, I'm not getting into a flame war I have more important things to do. Later bater.

Not flaming, however due to the inaccuracies of paintballs, and the ease of outside forces (wind etc) its a proven fact that the best way for elimination is accuracy by volume. take a guy at 50 yards. wide open do you have a better chance of hitting him first shooting 15bps or 5bps? (please don't make a comment about accuracy bc its paint to barrel match and consistancy so all markers set up right are just as accurate, or should i say inaccurate because the ball is so easily influenced.)

Also e-markers, with the exception of a couple, are also more simplistic in maintenence. Most require 4 drops of oil in a couple given places, where nothing has to be broken down or unscrewed to oil and maintence.

Those are just 2 MAIN reasons. Maintence and ROF... which rof is definately a plus when playing major tournament circuits.

[Ov3rmind]

Originally posted by rjcpaintball
I do believe my statement was an opinion so I don't see how that could be construed as ignorance. And because you believe I haven't played tournament ball I must be ignorant. That's an interesting assumption on your part...when in fact I have a genious IQ. Interesting. In what situation would it not be more advantagous to hurl 15+ balls a second, aside from the fact that you have only <15 balls in your hopper? Anyways, I'm not getting into a flame war I have more important things to do. Later bater.

You said some blatant blanket statements about e-markers in a derogatory way. I have every right to reply back and state my opinion, and yes, you may not understand the importance of ROF if you haven't played tourney ball. You need a fast gun to cover your front players going to the 50, you also need a fast gun to cut down runners (the simple fact of the matter, trailing them with shots doesn't work). Electronic guns can also use ACEs, and chopping a ball during an important game can ruin an entire game in many situations. And I don't know how you play, but I always have >15 balls in my hopper, last I checked mine can hold 185. I would have expected more from someone with a genius IQ, no offense.

[SLICEnDICE]

Court Records

Has anyone thought of looking into the court records in either the home district of ICD or SP to see what was really filled in court(they had to file in one of these places) and what was really said in court by the lawyers. That would help put an end to a lot of hear say for the moment and answer some of the many questions that the public has. It would help sort out the truth from the BS, (what they want you to know and what they tell you). Rember court records are PUBLIC DOMAIN. Lets use our heads and our combined skills to get to the bottom of this situation. My 2 cents.

[Recon by Fire]

This stuff is nothing new, like I have been saying.... Smart parts furst filed patent infringement cases in 1995. It is 8 years since then and paintball has not gone the way of the dinosaur yet. If you look at the dockets, you see that these cases are not conclusive giving either party everything they want and some were even settled out of court. The latest cases against Indian Creek Design were not availble online.

Here is a current listing from U.S. District Courts (Federal):

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++

Name Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed
1 SMART PARTS INC ordce 3:2002cv01557 11/15/2002 830
SMART PARTS INC vs. WDP LTD
2 SMART PARTS, INC pawdc 2:1997cv01425 08/05/1997 830 12/19/1997
SMART PARTS, INC vs. WDP, LTD.
3 SMART PARTS, INC. pawdc 2:1995cv00839 05/31/1995 830 03/27/1996
SMART PARTS, INC. vs. BARRELS OF AMERICA
4 SMART PARTS, INC. flmdc 6:2000mc00102 10/12/2000 890 10/12/2000
SMART PARTS, INC. vs. INDIAN CREEK DESIGN
5 SMART PARTS, INC. pawdc 2:2000cv01482 08/01/2000 830
SMART PARTS, INC. vs. INDIAN CREEK DESIGN
6 SMART PARTS, INC. ordce 3:2002cv00843 06/21/2002 830 08/21/2002
SMART PARTS, INC. vs. USA AIR CONCEPTS, INC.
7 SMART PARTS, INC. ordce 3:2002cv01498 11/05/2002 830
SMART PARTS, INC. vs. INDIAN CREEK DESIGNS, INC.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++

Here is a docket sheet from CA. 2:00cv1482. I was not able to retrieve the plaintiff's petition online.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++

U.S. District Court

Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 00-CV-1482

SMART PARTS, INC. v. INDIAN CREEK DESIGN, et al

Filed: 08/01/00
Assigned to: Judge Terrence F. McVerry
Jury demand: Both
Referred to: Mag. Judge Ila Jeanne Sensenich
Demand: $0,000
Nature of Suit: 830
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SMART PARTS, INC., a Samuel W. Braver
Pennsylvania Corporation 562-8939
plaintiff [COR LD NTC]
Michael L. Dever
562-1637
[COR]
Buchanan Ingersoll
301 Grant Street
One Oxford Centre, 20th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(412) 562-8800

Craig R. Rogers
[COR LD NTC]
Alan T. McCollom
[COR LD NTC]
Joseph S. Makuch
[COR LD NTC]
Marger, Johnson & McCollom
1030 SW Morrison Street
Portland, OR 97205
(503) 222-3613

v.

INDIAN CREEK DESIGN,INC, an Michael J. Bruzzese
Idaho Corporation [COR LD NTC]
defendant 307 Fourth Avenue
Suite 603, The Bank Tower
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
(412) 281-8676

Ken J. Pedersen
[COR LD NTC]
Pedersen & Company
1410 North 28th Street

P.O. Box 2666
Boise, ID 83701
(208) 343-6355

JERRY DOBBINS, an Individual Michael J. Bruzzese
defendant [term 10/12/00]
[term 10/12/00] (See above)
[COR LD NTC]

Ken J. Pedersen
[term 10/12/00]
(See above)
[COR]





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DOCKET PROCEEDINGS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE # DOCKET ENTRY



8/1/00 1 COMPLAINT with summons issued; jury demand Filing Fee $
150.00 Receipt # 7878 (aen) [Entry date 08/02/00]

8/1/00 -- COPY of complaint and Docket entries mailed to Commissioner
of Patents, Washington D.C. (aen) [Entry date 08/02/00]

8/2/00 2 DISCLOSURE statement by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen)
[Entry date 08/02/00]

8/8/00 3 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich (
signed by Judge Robert J. Cindrich on 8/8/00 ) CM all
parties of record. (aen) [Entry date 08/08/00]

8/29/00 4 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to INDIAN CREEK DESIGN, JERRY
DOBBINS 8/21/00 Answer due on 9/10/00 for INDIAN CREEK
DESIGN, for JERRY DOBBINS (emc) [Entry date 08/29/00]

9/11/00 5 MOTION by JERRY DOBBINS to Dismiss with Proposed Order.
(Attorney: Michael J. Bruzzese) (aen) [Entry date 09/11/00]

9/11/00 6 BRIEF by JERRY DOBBINS in support of [5-1] motion to
Dismiss by JERRY DOBBINS (aen) [Entry date 09/11/00]

9/11/00 7 ANSWER to Complaint; jury demand and COUNTERCLAIM by JERRY
DOBBINS against INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 09/11/00]

9/19/00 8 ORDER, Response to Motion set to 10/10/00 for [5-1] motion
to Dismiss ( signed by Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich on
9/19/00 ) CM all parties of record. (aen)
[Entry date 09/19/00]

9/26/00 9 MOTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN, JERRY DOBBINS for Ken J.
Pedersen to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing Fee $ 40.00
Receipt # 8759 with Proposed Order. (aen)
[Entry date 09/27/00]

10/2/00 10 ANSWER by SMART PARTS, INC. to [7-2] counter claim by
JERRY DOBBINS (aen) [Entry date 10/03/00]

10/3/00 -- ORDER upon motion granting [9-1] motion for Ken J. Pedersen
to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing Fee $ 40.00 Receipt # 8759
( signed by Judge Robert J. Cindrich on 10/2/00 ) CM all
parties of record. (aen) [Entry date 10/03/00]

10/6/00 11 MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. for Craig R. Rogers to Appear
Pro Hac Vice Filing Fee $ 40.00 Receipt # 129 with
Proposed Order. (aen) [Entry date 10/10/00]

10/6/00 12 MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. for Alan T. McCollom to Appear
Pro Hac Vice Filing Fee $ 40.00 Receipt # 129 with
Proposed Order. (aen) [Entry date 10/10/00]

10/6/00 13 MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. for Joseph S. Makuch to Appear
Pro Hac Vice Filing Fee $ 40.00 Receipt # 129 with
Proposed Order. (aen) [Entry date 10/10/00]

10/10/00 14 Stipulation by SMART PARTS, INC., INDIAN CREEK DESIGN,
JERRY DOBBINS Dismissing Jerry Dobbins with leave to amend
Complaint following Discovery with proposed order. (aen)
[Entry date 10/10/00]

10/12/00 -- ORDER upon motion granting [14-1] stipulation Dismissing
Jerry Dobbins with leave to amend Complaint following
Discovery ( signed by Judge Robert J. Cindrich on
10/12/00 ) CM all parties of record. (aen)
[Entry date 10/12/00]

11/7/00 15 ORDER, Rule 16.1 Conference Deadline set for 11:30
11/21/00 ( signed by Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich on
11/7/00 ) CM all parties of record. (aen)
[Entry date 11/07/00]

11/13/00 16 MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. for Leave to File First
Amended Complaint with Proposed Order. (aen)
[Entry date 11/13/00]

11/21/00 17 MOTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN for partial Summary
Judgment with Proposed Order. (aen) [Entry date 11/21/00]

11/21/00 18 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER setting Discovery cutoff on 4/23/01 ;
Pretrial Statements for Plaintiffs due 5/14/01 ; Pretrial
Statements for Defendants due 6/4/01 ; Pretrial Stipulation
due 7/20/01 ; Joining of parties amending of pleadings by
12/21/00 ; Motion Filing deadline due 7/30/01 ; ( signed
by Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich on 11/21/00 ) CM all
parties of record. (aen) [Entry date 11/21/00]

11/21/00 -- CASE DESIGNATED to Track 2. (aen) [Entry date 11/21/00]

11/21/00 -- ORDER upon motion granting [16-1] motion for Leave to File
First Amended Complaint as attached to this motion. (
signed by Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich on 11/21/00 ) CM all
parties of record. (aen) [Entry date 11/21/00]

11/21/00 -- AMENDED COMPLAINT by SMART PARTS, INC. (Answer due 12/5/00
for INDIAN CREEK DESIGN ) amending [1-1] complaint ( WITH
DOC # 16 ) (aen) [Entry date 11/21/00]

11/21/00 19 Rule 16 conference held on 11/21/00 Pltf to respond to
defts motion for summary judgment by 1/1901 reply due
2/20/01 before Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich [ Reporter: None
] (aen) [Entry date 11/21/00]

11/22/00 20 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 11/22/00]

11/22/00 21 BRIEF by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in support of [17-1] motion
for partial Summary Judgment by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 11/22/00]

11/27/00 22 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for INDIAN CREEK DESIGN by
Michael J. Bruzzese (aen) [Entry date 11/27/00]

11/27/00 23 DECLARATION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN by Ken J. Pedersen Re:
[17-1] motion for partial Summary Judgment by INDIAN CREEK
DESIGN (aen) [Entry date 11/27/00]

12/11/00 24 DECLARATION Jerry Dobbins Re: in support of Defts motion
for partial summary judgment. (aen) [Entry date 12/11/00]

12/18/00 25 MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. to Compel Discovery, to test
sufficiency of answers and objections with Proposed Order.
(aen) [Entry date 12/18/00]

12/18/00 -- MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. for Protective Order with
Proposed Order. ( With Doc # 25 ) (aen)
[Entry date 12/18/00]

12/18/00 26 BRIEF by SMART PARTS, INC. in support of [0-1] motion for
Protective Order by SMART PARTS, INC., [25-1] motion to
Compel Discovery, to test sufficiency of answers and
objections by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen) [Entry date 12/18/00]

12/18/00 27 DECLARATION by SMART PARTS, INC. by Craig R. Rogers Re:
[0-1] motion for Protective Order by SMART PARTS, INC.,
[25-1] motion to Compel Discovery, to test sufficiency of
answers and objections by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen)
[Entry date 12/18/00]

12/18/00 28 MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint with Proposed Order. (aen)
[Entry date 12/18/00]

12/18/00 29 LOCAL RULE 7.1 certificate by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen)
[Entry date 12/18/00]

12/21/00 30 MOTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN for Protective Order, and
to Stay Discovery with Proposed Order. (ces)
[Entry date 12/22/00]

12/21/00 31 MOTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to Bifurcate Proceedings
with Proposed Order. (ces) [Entry date 12/22/00]

12/21/00 32 ANSWER by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to amended complaint; jury
demand (ces) [Entry date 12/22/00]

12/21/00 -- COUNTERCLAIM by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN against SMART PARTS,
INC. (with 32) (ces) [Entry date 12/22/00]

12/21/00 33 DECLARATION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN of Michael J. Bruzzese
Re: [30-1] motion for Protective Order by INDIAN CREEK
DESIGN, [30-2] motion to Stay Discovery by INDIAN CREEK
DESIGN (ces) [Entry date 12/22/00]

12/21/00 34 BRIEF by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in support of [31-1] motion
to Bifurcate Proceedings by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (ces)
[Entry date 12/22/00]

12/21/00 35 BRIEF by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in support of [30-1] motion
for Protective Order by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN, [30-2] motion
to Stay Discovery by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (ces)
[Entry date 12/22/00]

12/21/00 36 LOCAL RULE 7.1 certificate by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (ces)
[Entry date 12/22/00]

12/28/00 37 MOTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to Extend Time in which to
respond to the pltf's motions to compel and to file second
amended complaint, with Proposed Order. (tt)
[Entry date 12/28/00]

1/10/01 38 RESPONSE by SMART PARTS, INC. in opposition to [30-1]
motion for Protective Order by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN, [30-2]
motion to Stay Discovery by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 01/10/01]

1/10/01 39 RESPONSE by SMART PARTS, INC. in opposition to [37-1]
motion to Extend Time in which to respond to the pltf's
motions to compel and to file second amended complaint by
INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen) [Entry date 01/10/01]

1/10/01 40 ANSWER by SMART PARTS, INC. to [0-1] counter claim by
INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen) [Entry date 01/10/01]

1/10/01 41 MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. for expedited Hearing on
discovery motions with Proposed Order. (aen)
[Entry date 01/10/01]

1/10/01 42 MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. to Compel discovery with
Proposed Order. (aen) [Entry date 01/10/01]

1/10/01 43 BRIEF by SMART PARTS, INC. in support of [42-1] motion to
Compel discovery by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen)
[Entry date 01/10/01]

1/10/01 44 RESPONSE by SMART PARTS, INC. in opposition to [31-1]
motion to Bifurcate Proceedings by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 01/11/01]

1/12/01 -- ORDER upon motion granting [37-1] motion to Extend Time in
which to respond to the pltf's motions to compel and to
file second amended complaint, Response to Motion set to
1/16/01 for [42-1] motion to Compel discovery ( signed by
Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich on 1/12/01 ) CM all parties of
record. (aen) [Entry date 01/12/01]

1/12/01 -- ORDER upon motion granting [41-1] motion for expedited
Hearing on discovery motions, Motion Hearing set for 2:00
1/31/01 for [42-1] motion to Compel discovery, set for 2:00
1/31/01 for [30-2] motion to Stay Discovery, set for 2:00
1/31/01 for [25-1] motion to Compel Discovery, to test
sufficiency of answers and objections ( signed by Mag.
Judge Ila J. Sensenich on 1/12/01 ) CM all parties of
record. (aen) [Entry date 01/12/01]

1/16/01 45 RESPONSE by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in opposition to [28-1]
motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by SMART
PARTS, INC. (aen) [Entry date 01/16/01]

1/16/01 46 MOTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN for expedited Hearing on
motion to Bifurcate with Proposed Order. (aen)
[Entry date 01/16/01]

1/16/01 47 BRIEF by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in opposition to [42-1]
motion to Compel discovery by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen)
[Entry date 01/16/01]

1/18/01 48 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen)
[Entry date 01/18/01]

1/18/01 49 MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. for Partial Summary Judgment
with Proposed Order. (aen) [Entry date 01/18/01]

1/18/01 50 BRIEF by SMART PARTS, INC. in opposition to [17-1] motion
for partial Summary Judgment by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 01/18/01]

1/18/01 -- BRIEF by SMART PARTS, INC. in support of [49-1] motion for
Partial Summary Judgment by SMART PARTS, INC. ( With Doc
50 ) (aen) [Entry date 01/18/01]

1/18/01 51 DECLARATION by SMART PARTS, INC. William Gardner Jr. Re:
[50-1] brief in opposition by SMART PARTS, INC., [49-1]
motion for Partial Summary Judgment by SMART PARTS, INC.
(aen) [Entry date 01/18/01]

1/29/01 52 RESPONSE by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in opposition to [42-1]
motion to Compel discovery by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen)
[Entry date 01/30/01]

1/30/01 53 MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. for Hearing on motion to
Bifurcate (aen) [Entry date 01/30/01]

2/1/01 54 Hearing on Motion held re: Discovery Motions and motion to
file second amended complaint, before Magistrate Judge
Sensenich. [ Reporter: None] (aen) [Entry date 02/01/01]

2/1/01 55 PROTECTIVE ORDER dated 1/31/01 ( signed by Mag. Judge Ila
J. Sensenich on 1/31/01 ) CM all parties of record. (aen)
[Entry date 02/01/01]

2/1/01 -- ORDER upon motion granting [42-1] motion to Compel
discovery ( signed by Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich on
1/31/01 ) CM all parties of record. (aen)
[Entry date 02/01/01]

2/1/01 -- ORDER upon motion denying [30-1] motion for Protective
Order, denying [30-2] motion to Stay Discovery ( signed by
Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich on 1/31/01 ) CM all parties of
record. (aen) [Entry date 02/01/01]

2/1/01 -- ORDER upon motion granting [25-1] motion to Compel
Discovery, to test sufficiency of answers and objections (
signed by Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich on 1/31/01 ) CM all
parties of record. (aen) [Entry date 02/01/01]

2/1/01 -- ORDER upon motion granting [28-1] motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint as attached to this motion. (
signed by Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich on 1/31/01 ) CM all
parties of record. (aen) [Entry date 02/01/01]

2/1/01 -- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by SMART PARTS, INC. (Answer due
2/15/01 for JERRY DOBBINS, for INDIAN CREEK DESIGN )
amending [0-1] amended complaint by SMART PARTS, INC. (
With Doc # 28 ) (aen) [Entry date 02/01/01]

2/7/01 56 ORDER, Response to Motion set to 2/27/01 for [49-1] motion
for Partial Summary Judgment ( signed by Mag. Judge Ila
J. Sensenich on 2/7/01 ) CM all parties of record. (aen)
[Entry date 02/07/01]

2/9/01 57 MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. for Reconsideration of Denial
of Request for Expenses with Proposed Order. (aen)
[Entry date 02/12/01]

2/9/01 58 BRIEF by SMART PARTS, INC. in support of [57-1] motion for
Reconsideration of Denial of Request for Expenses by SMART
PARTS, INC. (aen) [Entry date 02/12/01]

2/20/01 59 BRIEF by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in opposition to [57-1]
motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Request for
Expenses by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen) [Entry date 02/21/01]

2/20/01 60 REPLY BRIEF by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to [50-1] brief in
opposition by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen) [Entry date 02/21/01]

2/27/01 61 RESPONSE by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in opposition to [49-1]
motion for Partial Summary Judgment by SMART PARTS, INC.
(aen) [Entry date 02/28/01]

2/27/01 62 DECLARATION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN Jerry Dobbins Re: [61-1]
opposition response by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 02/28/01]

3/1/01 63 ANSWER by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN, JERRY DOBBINS to Second
amended complaint; jury demand (aen) [Entry date 03/02/01]

3/1/01 -- COUNTERCLAIM by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN, JERRY DOBBINS against
SMART PARTS, INC. ( With Doc # 63 ) (aen)
[Entry date 03/02/01]

3/7/01 -- ORDER upon motion denying pltf's [57-1] motion for
Reconsideration of Denial of Request for Expenses. ( signed
by Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich on 3/6/01 ) CM all parties
of record. (tt) [Entry date 03/07/01]

3/20/01 64 ANSWER by SMART PARTS, INC. to [0-1] counter claim by
JERRY DOBBINS, INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 03/20/01]

4/3/01 -- ORDER upon motion granting [11-1] motion for Craig R.
Rogers to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing Fee $ 40.00 Receipt
# 129 ( signed by Judge Robert J. Cindrich on 4/3/01 ) CM
all parties of record. (aen) [Entry date 04/03/01]

4/3/01 -- ORDER upon motion granting [12-1] motion for Alan T.
McCollom to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing Fee $ 40.00
Receipt # 129 ( signed by Judge Robert J. Cindrich on
4/3/01 ) CM all parties of record. (aen)
[Entry date 04/03/01]

4/3/01 -- ORDER upon motion granting [13-1] motion for Joseph S.
Makuch to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing Fee $ 40.00 Receipt
# 129 ( signed by Judge Robert J. Cindrich on 4/3/01 ) CM
all parties of record. (aen) [Entry date 04/03/01]

4/10/01 65 MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. for Protective Order with
Proposed Order. (jsp) [Entry date 04/11/01]

4/12/01 66 MOTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to Strike [65-1] motion for
Protective Order by SMART PARTS, INC. with Proposed Order.
(aen) [Entry date 04/12/01]

4/12/01 -- RESPONSE by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to [65-1] motion for
Protective Order by SMART PARTS, INC. ( With Doc # 66 )
(aen) [Entry date 04/12/01]

4/13/01 67 ERRATA SHEET to [65-1] motion for Protective Order by SMART
PARTS, INC. (aen) [Entry date 04/13/01]

4/13/01 -- ORDER upon motion dismissing [65-1] motion for Protective
Order ( signed by Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich on 4/13/01
) CM all parties of record. (aen) [Entry date 04/13/01]

4/13/01 68 Hearing on Motion held re: [65-1] motion for Protective
Order by SMART PARTS, INC. [ Reporter: None] (aen)
[Entry date 04/13/01]

4/13/01 -- ORDER upon motion denying [66-1] motion to Strike [65-1]
motion for Protective Order by SMART PARTS, INC. ( signed
by Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich on 4/13/01 ) CM all parties
of record. (aen) [Entry date 04/13/01]

4/13/01 69 WITHDRAWL of motion for Protective Order filed by the Pltf.
(aen) [Entry date 04/16/01]

4/17/01 70 ORDER dated 4/16/01 that the Court will provide both sides
with the opportunity to select another judge pursuant to AO
20 procedures and the AO 20 letter will be distributed by
the Clerk of Court Forthwith. ( signed by Judge Robert J.
Cindrich on 4/16/01 ) CM all parties of record. (aen)
[Entry date 04/17/01]

4/30/01 71 Stipulation by SMART PARTS, INC., INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to
Amend [18-1] case mangement order with proposed order. (aen)
[Entry date 04/30/01]

5/8/01 -- ORDER upon motion granting [71-1] stipulation to Amend
[18-1] case mangement order, to reset Case Management
Order Deadlines: Discovery cutoff to 4/24/01 ; Pretrial
Statements for Plaintiffs due 6/4/01 ; Pretrial Statements
for Defendants due 6/25/01 ; ( signed by Mag. Judge Ila
J. Sensenich on 5/8/01 ) CM all parties of record. (aen)
[Entry date 05/09/01]

6/4/01 72 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen)
[Entry date 06/05/01]

6/25/01 73 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN, JERRY DOBBINS
(aen) [Entry date 06/26/01]

7/2/01 74 RULE 20 ADVISORY OPINION from Clerk of Court to all counsel
of record. (aen) [Entry date 07/02/01]

7/6/01 75 Stipulation by SMART PARTS, INC., INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to
revise case management order with proposed order. (aen)
[Entry date 07/06/01]

7/11/01 76 MOTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN for Leave to File Amended
Declaration of Jerry Dobbins in support of Defts opposition
to Pltfs motion for Summary Judgment with Proposed Order.
(aen) [Entry date 07/11/01]

7/11/01 -- ORDER upon motion granting [75-1] stipulation to revise
case management order, to reset Case Management Order
Deadlines: Expert Witness Qualifications due 7/25/01 ; (
signed by Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich on 7/10/01 ) CM all
parties of record. (aen) [Entry date 07/11/01]

7/13/01 77 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich
signed on 7/13/01 Recommending that [49-1] motion for
Partial Summary Judgment be denied, [17-1] motion for
partial Summary Judgment be denied ; The parties have 10
days from the date of service to file objections to this
Report and Recommendation. (aen) [Entry date 07/13/01]

7/17/01 -- ORDER upon motion denying [76-1] motion for Leave to File
Amended Declaration of Jerry Dobbins in support of Defts
opposition to Pltfs motion for Summary Judgment ( signed
by Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich on 7/17/01 ) CM all parties
of record. (aen) [Entry date 07/18/01]

7/24/01 78 MOTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN for Leave to File First
Supplemental Pretrial statement with Proposed Order. (aen)
[Entry date 07/24/01]

7/24/01 79 Pretrial stipulation by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 07/24/01]

7/24/01 80 Pretrial stipulation by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN ( CONFIDENTIAL
PORTION OF PRETRIAL STIPUALTION BY THE PARTIES ( Filed
Under Seal ) (aen) [Entry date 07/24/01]

7/24/01 81 OBJECTION by SMART PARTS, INC. to [77-1] report and
recommendations (aen) [Entry date 07/24/01]

7/26/01 82 OBJECTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to [77-1] report and
recommendations (aen) [Entry date 07/27/01]

7/30/01 83 SECOND MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. for Partial Summary
Judgment with Proposed Order. (aen) [Entry date 07/31/01]

7/30/01 84 BRIEF by SMART PARTS, INC. in support of [83-1] motion for
Partial Summary Judgment by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen)
[Entry date 07/31/01]

7/30/01 85 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS by SMART PARTS, INC. in support
of Pltfs Second motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (aen)
[Entry date 07/31/01]

7/30/01 86 THIRD MOTION by SMART PARTS, INC. for Partial Summary
Judgment with Proposed Order. (aen) [Entry date 07/31/01]

7/30/01 87 BRIEF by SMART PARTS, INC. in support of [86-1] motion for
Partial Summary Judgment by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen)
[Entry date 07/31/01]

7/30/01 88 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS by SMART PARTS, INC. in support
of pltfs Third Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (aen)
[Entry date 07/31/01]

7/30/01 89 MOTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to make Defts motion for
partial summary judgment one for Complete Summary Judgment
with Proposed Order. (aen) [Entry date 07/31/01]

7/30/01 90 BRIEF by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in support of [89-1] motion
to make Defts motion for partial summary judgment one for
Complete Summary Judgment by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 07/31/01]

8/1/01 -- SEALED DOCUMENT ( Pretrial Statement of Pltf Smart Parts
Inc. (aen) [Entry date 08/01/01]

8/1/01 -- ORDER upon motion granting [78-1] motion for Leave to File
First Supplemental Pretrial statement ( signed by Mag.
Judge Ila J. Sensenich on 7/31/01 ) CM all parties of
record. (aen) [Entry date 08/01/01]

8/1/01 -- Minute entry: [31-1] motion to Bifurcate Proceedings,
[46-1] motion for expedited Hearing on motion to Bifurcate,
[53-1] motion for Hearing on motion to Bifurcate to be
decided by Judge Cindrich (cw) [Entry date 09/04/01]

8/2/01 91 DECLARATION William M. Gardner, Jr Re: in support of Pltfs
Second motion for partial summary judgment (aen)
[Entry date 08/02/01]

8/2/01 92 DECLARATION Raymond S. Gaston Re: in support of Pltfs Third
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (aen)
[Entry date 08/02/01]

8/2/01 93 DECLARATION William M. Gardner Jr Re: in support of Pltfs
Third motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (aen)
[Entry date 08/02/01]

8/2/01 94 DECLARATION David L. Smith Re: in support of Pltfs Third
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (aen)
[Entry date 08/02/01]

8/2/01 95 NOTICE of filing original declarations. (aen)
[Entry date 08/02/01]

8/2/01 96 RESPONSE by SMART PARTS, INC. in opposition to [82-1]
objection by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 08/03/01]

8/3/01 97 RESPONSE by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to [81-1] objection by
SMART PARTS, INC. (aen) [Entry date 08/03/01]

8/24/01 98 ORDER, Briefs in Support set to 9/12/01 for [83-1] motion
for Partial Summary Judgment, [86-1] motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and for [89-1] motion to make Defts motion
for partial summary judgment one for Complete Summary
Judgment; Briefs in Opposition set to 10/2/01 for [83-1]
motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [86-1] motion for
Partial Summary Judgment and for [89-1] motion to make
Defts motion for partial summary judgment one for Complete
Summary Judgment. ( signed by Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich
on 8/24/01 ) CM all parties of record. (tt)
[Entry date 08/27/01]

9/12/01 99 BRIEF by SMART PARTS, INC. in opposition to [89-1] motion
to make Defts motion for partial summary judgment one for
Complete Summary Judgment by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 09/12/01]

9/28/01 100 ORDER denying [31-1] motion to Bifurcate Proceedings (
signed by Judge Robert J. Cindrich on 9/28/01 ) CM all
parties of record. (aen) [Entry date 09/28/01]

10/1/01 101 MOTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to Extend Time to file
response to pltfs motions for summary judgment with
Proposed Order. (aen) [Entry date 10/02/01]

10/2/01 102 REPLY BRIEF by SMART PARTS, INC. in support of [83-1]
motion for Partial Summary Judgment by SMART PARTS, INC.
(aen) [Entry date 10/02/01]

10/2/01 103 REPLY BRIEF by SMART PARTS, INC. in support of [86-1]
motion for Partial Summary Judgment by SMART PARTS, INC.
(aen) [Entry date 10/02/01]

10/2/01 104 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [86-1] motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, granting in part, denying in part
[83-1] motion for Partial Summary Judgment, granting in
part, denying in part [49-1] motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, adopting [77-1] report and recommendations (
signed by Judge Robert J. Cindrich on 10/2/01 ) CM all
parties of record. (aen) [Entry date 10/02/01]

10/9/01 105 RESPONSE by SMART PARTS, INC. to [101-1] motion to Extend
Time to file response to pltfs motions for summary judgment
by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen) [Entry date 10/10/01]

10/10/01 -- ORDER upon motion granting [101-1] motion to Extend Time to
file response to pltfs motions for summary judgment,
Response to Motion set to 10/12/01 for [89-1] motion to
make Defts motion for partial summary judgment one for
Complete Summary Judgment ( signed by Mag. Judge Ila J.
Sensenich on 10/9/01 ) CM all parties of record. (aen)
[Entry date 10/10/01]

10/15/01 106 RESPONSE by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in opposition to [83-1]
motion for Partial Summary Judgment by SMART PARTS, INC.
(aen) [Entry date 10/15/01]

10/15/01 107 COUNTERSTATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED FACTS RESPONSE
by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in support of [106-1] opposition
response by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen) [Entry date 10/15/01]

10/15/01 108 DECLARATION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN by Ken J. Pedersen Re:
[106-1] opposition response by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 10/15/01]

10/15/01 109 RESPONSE by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in opposition to [86-1]
motion for Partial Summary Judgment by SMART PARTS, INC.
(aen) [Entry date 10/15/01]

10/15/01 110 COUNTERSTSTEMENT OF DISPUTE AND UNDISPUTED FACTS RESPONSE
by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in support of [109-1] opposition
response by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen) [Entry date 10/15/01]

10/15/01 111 DECLARATION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN Thomas P. Jensen Re:
[109-1] opposition response by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 10/15/01]

10/26/01 112 SUBSTITUTE REPLY BRIEF by SMART PARTS, INC. in support of
[83-1] motion for Partial Summary Judgment by SMART PARTS,
INC. (aen) [Entry date 10/29/01]

10/26/01 113 SUBSTITUTE REPLY BRIEF by SMART PARTS, INC. in support of
[86-1] motion for Partial Summary Judgment by SMART PARTS,
INC. (aen) [Entry date 10/29/01]

2/25/02 -- ORDER upon motion denying [89-1] motion to make Defts
motion for partial summary judgment one for Complete
Summary Judgment ( signed by Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich
on 2/23/02 ) CM all parties of record. (aen)
[Entry date 02/25/02]

3/13/02 114 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich
signed on 3/13/02 Recommending that [86-1] motion for
Partial Summary Judgment be denied ; The parties have 10
days from the date of service to file objections to this
Report and Recommendation. (aen) [Entry date 03/13/02]

3/13/02 115 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich
signed on 3/13/02 Recommending that [83-1] motion for
Partial Summary Judgment be granted in part and Denied in
part as to defts Counterclaim. ; The parties have 10 days
from the date of service to file objections to this Report
and Recommendation. (aen) [Entry date 03/13/02]

3/21/02 116 OBJECTION by SMART PARTS, INC. to [115-1] report and
recommendations (aen) [Entry date 03/21/02]

3/25/02 117 SECOND MOTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN for Summary Judgment
with Proposed Order. (aen) [Entry date 03/25/02]

3/25/02 118 BRIEF by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in support of [117-1] motion
for Summary Judgment by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 03/25/02]

3/25/02 119 DECLARATION Thomas P. Jensen Re: [117-1] motion for Summary
Judgment by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen) [Entry date 03/25/02]

3/25/02 120 DECLARATION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN by Ken J. Pedersen Re:
[117-1] motion for Summary Judgment by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN
(aen) [Entry date 03/25/02]

3/25/02 121 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in
support of Defts Second Motion for Summary Judgment. (aen)
[Entry date 03/25/02]

3/26/02 122 OBJECTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to [115-1] report and
recommendations (aen) [Entry date 03/27/02]

3/26/02 123 INDIAN CREEK DESIGN, INC Comments Regarding the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation on Pltfs Third Motion for
Summary Judgment. (aen) [Entry date 03/27/02]

4/1/02 124 RESPONSE by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in opposition to [116-1]
objection by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen) [Entry date 04/02/02]

4/5/02 125 RESPONSE by SMART PARTS, INC. to [122-1] objection by
INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen) [Entry date 04/05/02]

4/5/02 126 BRIEF by SMART PARTS, INC. in opposition to [117-1] motion
for Summary Judgment by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 04/05/02]

4/5/02 127 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen)
[Entry date 04/05/02]

4/18/02 128 REPLY BRIEF by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to [126-1] brief in
opposition by SMART PARTS, INC. [60-1] reply brief by
INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen) [Entry date 04/18/02]

5/7/02 129 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [83-1] motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, adopting [115-1] report and
recommendations ( signed by Judge Robert J. Cindrich on
5/7/02 ) CM all parties of record. (aen)
[Entry date 05/08/02]

5/10/02 130 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying [117-1] motion for Summary
Judgment, adopting [114-1] report and recommendations (
signed by Judge Robert J. Cindrich on 5/7/02 ) CM all
parties of record. (ces) [Entry date 05/10/02]

6/10/02 131 BRIEF by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN in support of Defts motion
for claims construction ( Markman Hearing ) (aen)
[Entry date 06/11/02]

6/10/02 132 MOTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN for Claims Construction (
Markman Hearing ) (aen) [Entry date 06/11/02]

6/10/02 133 DECLARATION Thomas P. Jensen Re: [132-1] motion for Claims
Construction ( Markman Hearing ) by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 06/11/02]

6/10/02 134 DECLARATION by Ken J. Pedersen Re: [132-1] motion for
Claims Construction ( Markman Hearing ) by INDIAN CREEK
DESIGN (aen) [Entry date 06/11/02]

6/26/02 135 BRIEF by SMART PARTS, INC. in opposition to [132-1] motion
for Claims Construction ( Markman Hearing ) by INDIAN CREEK
DESIGN (aen) [Entry date 06/26/02]

7/8/02 136 RESPONSE by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to [135-1] brief in
opposition by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen) [Entry date 07/08/02]

10/4/02 137 ORDER that this case is reassigned to Judge McVerry. (
signed by Judge Robert J. Cindrich on 10/4/02 ) CM all
parties of record. (aen) [Entry date 10/04/02]

10/4/02 -- CASE reassigned to Judge Terrence F. McVerry (aen)
[Entry date 10/04/02]

10/30/02 138 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Mag. Judge Ila J. Sensenich
signed on 10/30/02 Recommending that [117-1] motion for
Summary Judgment be granted [132-1] in part and Denied in
part motion for Claims Construction ( Markman Hearing ) be
granted ; The parties have 10 days from the date of service
to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. (aen)
[Entry date 10/30/02]

11/12/02 139 OBJECTION by SMART PARTS, INC. to [138-1] report and
recommendations (jsp) [Entry date 11/12/02]

11/12/02 140 OBJECTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to [138-1] report and
recommendations (plh) [Entry date 11/13/02]

11/19/02 141 NOTICE of related case filings by SMART PARTS, INC. (aen)
[Entry date 11/19/02]

11/19/02 142 RESPONSE by SMART PARTS, INC. in opposition to [140-1]
objection by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 11/19/02]

11/19/02 143 RESPONSE by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to [139-1] objection by
SMART PARTS, INC. (aen) [Entry date 11/20/02]

11/21/02 144 AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Mag. Judge Ila J.
Sensenich signed on 11/20/02 Recommending that [117-1]
motion for Summary Judgment be granted [132-1] motion for
Claims Construction ( Markman Hearing ) be granted ; The
parties have 10 days from the date of service to file
objections to this Report and Recommendation. (aen)
[Entry date 11/21/02]

12/2/02 145 OBJECTION by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN to [144-1] report and
recommendations (aen) [Entry date 12/03/02]

12/11/02 146 RESPONSE by SMART PARTS, INC. in opposition to [145-1]
objection by INDIAN CREEK DESIGN (aen)
[Entry date 12/11/02]

1/9/03 147 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part, denying in part defts'
[117-1] second motion for Summary Judgment. The motion is
granted as to non-infringement of Claim 3 of the '707
patent and denied as to non-infringement of Claim 1 of the
'843 patent ; Defts' [132-1] motion for Claims Construction
is granted and that the matter is hereby referred to Mag.
Judge Sensenich for a Markman hearing to determine whether
the language of Claim 1 of the '843 patent supports the
construction of a single, four-way solenoid valve as an
embodiment of the element requiring first and second
electrically operated pneumatic flow distribution
mechanisms ; The Markman hearing is to determine
construction of Claim 15 of the '133 patent, as per Judge
Cindrich's Order entered 10/2/01 directing remand for
construction of the term "electrically controlling the
filing of" in Claim 15 of the '133 patent ; the [144-1]
amended report and recommendation is adopted as the opinion
of the court. ( signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on
1/9/03 ) CM all parties of record. (tt)
[Entry date 01/10/03]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

END OF DOCKET: 2:00cv1482

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++

Here is another one, CA. 2:97cv1425 :

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++


U.S. District Court

Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 97-CV-1425

SMART PARTS, INC v. WDP, LTD.

Filed: 08/05/97
Assigned to: Judge Gary L. Lancaster
Jury demand: Plaintiff
Demand: $0,000
Nature of Suit: 830
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SMART PARTS, INC Thomas C. Wettach
plaintiff [COR LD NTC]
Gerald Jospeh Iwanejko, J.
[COR LD NTC]
Titus & McConomy
Four Gateway Center
Twentieth Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
(412) 642-2000

v.

WDP, LTD.
defendant





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DOCKET PROCEEDINGS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE # DOCKET ENTRY



8/5/97 1 COMPLAINT with summons issued; jury demand Filing Fee
$150.00 Receipt #8675 (plh) [Entry date 08/05/97]

12/19/97 2 STIPULATION of dismissal with proposed order. (cw)
[Entry date 12/19/97]

12/19/97 3 ORDER, the court having been advised by counsel for the
plaintiff that this case has been settled, that the Clerk
mark this case closed. ( signed by Judge Gary L. Lancaster
on 12/19/97 ) CM all parties of record. Notices mailed. (emc)
[Entry date 12/19/97]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Case Flags:
CLOSED




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF DOCKET: 2:97cv1425

[icegod]

Re: Court Records

Originally posted by SLICEnDICE
Has anyone thought of looking into the court records in either the home district of ICD or SP to see what was really filled in court(they had to file in one of these places) and what was really said in court by the lawyers. That would help put an end to a lot of hear say for the moment and answer some of the many questions that the public has. It would help sort out the truth from the BS, (what they want you to know and what they tell you). Rember court records are PUBLIC DOMAIN. Lets use our heads and our combined skills to get to the bottom of this situation. My 2 cents.

court records arent usually public domain until closed. You can get like case numbers, headings, plf\def and SOMETIMES a briefing, but usually not. Also up until recently its been nothing but alot of depositions and hearings, the actual court date is set for sept. if i remember correctly. Also someone did a search (up a page or so) that had alot of headings and case numbers.