847-705-7100   |    Sign In   |    Shopping Cart Cart (0)

Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc. et al




Lawsuit Details

RFC Case Number: P-V09-1968P
Court Case Number: 6:09-cv-01968-PCF-KRS
File Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009
Plaintiff: Voter Verified, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Anthony I. Provitola of Anthony I. Provitola, PA
Defendant: Premier Election Solutions, Inc.
Diebold, Incorporated
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Court: Florida Middle District Court
Judge: Senior Judge Patricia C. Fawsett
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding
Notes:
Patent Details:
Patent Information Available To Active Paid Subscribers Only
Already have an account? Login Now
Need an account? Register for a Free Trial



Docket Text

This may not be the most complete up-to-date docket information.
For daily updates on this case, sign-up for a Lawsuit Tracker.
See the box on the right side of this page for details on the Lawsuit Tracker


Date # Docket Text
11/19/2009 1 COMPLAINT against Premier Election Solutions, Inc., Diebold, Incorporated with Jury Demand (Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 32919) filed by Voter Verified, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(LAK) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
11/19/2009 Summons issued as to Premier Election Solutions, Inc., Diebold, Incorporated. (LAK) (Entered: 11/20/2009)

Download Case Documents



Get a copy of the official court documents from only $0.99



IP Lawfirms & Attorneys

Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Info



MONITOR THIS CASE WITH OUR EXCLUSIVE

LAWSUIT TRACKER

Automatic monitoring.
Email notification of any docket updates.
From $3.99/month.
Click Here






Home   |   About   |   Lawsuits   |   Register   |   Login   |   Terms of Use   |   Privacy Policy   |   Sitemap   |   RSS Feed   |   Contact

© Copyright 2010 RFC Express — All Rights Reserved — Presented By Intellectual Property Today

RFC Express provides access to public lawsuit filings retrieved from the U.S. Federal District Courts.
These lawsuits, and associated information should not be considered findings of fact or liability. Nor do they reflect the views of RFC Express or any of its employees.