Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC v. Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC

Summary

Digital Media Technology Holdings sues Disney for patent infringement involving media distribution technology.

Summary generated by AI from public docket data. Verify against the original filing before relying on it.

Coverage vs reality meter

Cause

35:271 Patent Infringement

Entities in this case

Parties

Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC

Docket entries

1. 2024-10-08

   1 - Terminate Deadlines and Hearings AND Oral Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

2. 2024-08-26

   1 - Terminate Hearings AND Oral Order AND ~Util - Set Hearings

3. 2024-05-22

   Oral Order

4. 2024-04-03

   Oral Order AND Order Setting Briefing Schedule - open, ans, reply, surreply

5. 2023-11-20

   Scheduling Conference

6. 2023-10-13

   Order Setting Briefing Schedule - open, ans, reply, surreply AND SO ORDERED

7. 2023-10-11

   Oral Order

8. 2023-08-31

   Add Attorneys - PHV only

9. 2023-08-30

   SO ORDERED

10. 2023-07-19

    SO ORDERED AND ~Util - Set/Reset Answer Deadline

11. 2023-07-17

    - CORRECTING ENTRY

12. 2023-06-01

    Remark re Newer Attorneys

13. 2023-06-01

    Remark

14. 2023-05-23

    SO ORDERED AND ~Util - Set/Reset Answer Deadline

15. 2023-02-14

    Add Attorneys - PHV only

16. 2023-02-13

    SO ORDERED

17. 2023-02-13

    SO ORDERED, re 9 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney John Carey, filed by Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 2/13/2023. (kmd)

18. 2023-01-17

    ORAL ORDER: It is HEREBY ORDERED that on or before January 24, 2023, the parties shall either (1) submit to the Clerk of Court an executed Form AO 85 Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge, indicating their consent to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case including trial, the entry of final judgment, and post-trial proceedings; or (2) file a joint letter indicating that all the parties do not consent to a referral of this action to a Magistrate Judge. The letter should not indicate which party or parties did not consent. If all the parties consent, the case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Burke. Because of the Court's caseload, if the parties do not consent, the Court intends to assign the case to a visiting judge from another district. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 1/17/2023.(nmf)

19. 2023-01-17

    Oral Order

20. 2023-01-04

    Case Assigned/Reassigned

Docket history from CourtListener/RECAP — most recent first.