Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe
 
SummaryLawsuit
Summary
  
Court DocumentsCourt
Documents
  
Docket TextDocket
Text
  
Lawsuit Tracker™Lawsuit
Tracker™
  
Docket TextRelated
Cases
  

Lawsuit Details
RFC Case Number: C-I12-520J
Court Case Number: 2:12-cv-00520-AWA-DEM
File Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Plaintiff: Ingenuity 13, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Timothy V. Anderson of Anderson & Associates
Defendant: John Doe
Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
Court: Virginia Eastern District Court
Judge: District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller
Notes:

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
9/18/2012 3 Report on the filing or determination of an action regarding trademark PA0001791654.. (bnew) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
9/18/2012 2 Financial Interest Disclosure Statement (Local Rule 7.1) by Ingenuity 13, LLC. (bnew) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
9/18/2012 1 COMPLAINT against John Doe ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 24683016974.), filed by Ingenuity 13, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Receipt)(bnew) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
Need more info about this lawsuit?
Court Documents Instantly access recently filed official court documents
Docket Text Review activity within the case
Lawsuit Tracker™ Get automatic notifications of any new information about this case.
Related Cases Review similar cases found across multiple criteria


IP Lawfirms & Attorneys

Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Info




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

© Copyright 2008-2013 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.
extended validation certificate