Arctic Cat Inc. et al v. Polaris Industries Inc.

Court DocumentsCourt
Docket TextDocket
Lawsuit Tracker™Lawsuit
Docket TextRelated

Lawsuit Details

RFC Case Number: P-A13-3579P
Court Case Number: 0:13-cv-03579-MJD-FLN
File Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013
Plaintiff: Arctic Cat Inc.
Arctic Cat Sales Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael D. Okerlund of Arctic Cat Inc.
Defendant: Polaris Industries Inc.
Cause: 35:145 Patent Infringement
Court: Minnesota District Court
Judge: Chief Judge Michael J. Davis
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel
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
12/20/2013 5 Summons Issued as to Polaris Industries Inc.(a Delaware Corporation), Polaris Industries Inc.(a Minnesota Corporation). (akl) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
12/20/2013 4
12/19/2013 3
12/19/2013 2 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Plaintiff Arctic Cat Sales Inc. states that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Plaintiff Arctic Cat Inc.(Okerlund, Michael) Modified on 12/20/2013 (akl). (Entered: 12/19/2013)
12/19/2013 1
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

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

© Copyright 2008-2015 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