Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 442 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`DEFENDANTS PARROT S.A. AND PARROT, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1295
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00111
`
`Judge Arthur J. Schwab
`
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`
`
`PARROT S.A. and PARROT, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`Notice is hereby given that Defendants Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc., (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) in the above-named case, appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit from the judgment denying Parrot’s post-trial motions, entered on July 16, 2015
`
`(Doc. No. 436), the final judgment and order entered in this action on June 12, 2015 (Doc. No.
`
`405), and from all orders and rulings merged therein, and all other underlying or related orders,
`
`rulings, and findings, including but not limited to:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Memorandum Order dated May 19, 2014 (Doc. No. 29), denying Defendants’
`
`Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review or Transfer Venue (Doc. No. 17);
`
`Text Order dated May 30, 2014, denying Defendants’ Motion to Clarify the
`
`Protective Order to Include a Limited Patent Prosecution Bar;
`
`Order dated July 1, 2014 (Doc. No. 48), granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
`
`Initial Disclosure Documents (Doc. No. 41);
`
`Text Order dated July 8, 2014, denying Defendants’ Emergency Motion for
`
`Reconsideration of the Court’s July 1, 2014 Order;
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`DEFENDANTS PARROT S.A. AND PARROT, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1295
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00111
`
`Judge Arthur J. Schwab
`
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`
`
`PARROT S.A. and PARROT, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`Notice is hereby given that Defendants Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc., (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) in the above-named case, appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit from the judgment denying Parrot’s post-trial motions, entered on July 16, 2015
`
`(Doc. No. 436), the final judgment and order entered in this action on June 12, 2015 (Doc. No.
`
`405), and from all orders and rulings merged therein, and all other underlying or related orders,
`
`rulings, and findings, including but not limited to:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Memorandum Order dated May 19, 2014 (Doc. No. 29), denying Defendants’
`
`Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review or Transfer Venue (Doc. No. 17);
`
`Text Order dated May 30, 2014, denying Defendants’ Motion to Clarify the
`
`Protective Order to Include a Limited Patent Prosecution Bar;
`
`Order dated July 1, 2014 (Doc. No. 48), granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
`
`Initial Disclosure Documents (Doc. No. 41);
`
`Text Order dated July 8, 2014, denying Defendants’ Emergency Motion for
`
`Reconsideration of the Court’s July 1, 2014 Order;
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 442 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 6
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Text Order dated July 9, 2014, denying Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate
`
`Discovery and Trial;
`
`Text Order dated July 11, 2014, denying Defendants’ Motion to Compel the
`
`Deposition of Mr. Bruce Ding;
`
`Order dated July 25, 2014 (Doc. No. 63), granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
`
`Defendants to Obey the Court’s July 1, 2014 Order (Doc. No. 61);
`
`Order dated August 7, 2014 (Doc. No. 70), denying Defendants’ Emergency
`
`Motion to Modify the Protective Order (Doc. No. 64);
`
`Memorandum Order dated August 14, 2014 (Doc. No. 77), denying Defendants’
`
`Emergency Motion for Relief from the Court’s Order dated July 25, 2014, or, in
`
`the Alternative, for a Stay Pending a Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. No.
`
`74);
`
`10.
`
`Order dated August 19, 2014 (Doc. No. 81), Re: granting in part and denying in
`
`part Defendants’ Motion
`
`to Compel
`
`the 30(b)(6) Deposition of Drone
`
`Technologies, Inc. and the Depositions of Mr. Bruce Ding and Ms. Diane Lee
`
`(Doc. No. 72);
`
`11.
`
`Order and Memorandum Opinion dated November 3, 2014, striking Defendants’
`
`Answer and Counterclaims, entering default judgment against Defendants as to
`
`liability, and denying Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended
`
`Answer and Counterclaims (Doc. Nos. 106, 107);
`
`12. Memorandum Order dated November 19, 2014 (Doc. No. 125), denying
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Appeal or, in the Alternative, to Stay
`
`Pending Inter Partes Review (Doc. No. 112);
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 442 Filed 07/27/15 Page 3 of 6
`
`13.
`
`Order dated December 4, 2014 (Doc. No. 137), denying Defendants’ Motion
`
`Challenging the Confidentiality Designations of the Depositions of Drone
`
`Technologies, Inc., Bruce Ding, and Yu-Tuan “Diane” Lee under Paragraph 5 of
`
`the Protective Order (Doc. No. 128);
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`Order dated December 16, 2014 (Doc. No. 145), granting Plaintiff’s Motion to
`
`Compel Damages Discovery (Doc. No. 138);
`
`Order dated January 15, 2015 (Doc. No. 154), granting Plaintiff’s Second Motion
`
`to Compel Damages Discovery (Doc. Nos. 150, 152);
`
`Order dated February 2, 2015 (Doc. No. 164), granting in part Plaintiff’s Third
`
`Motion to Compel Damages Discovery (Doc. No. 158);
`
`Order dated February 5, 2015 (Doc. No. 171), denying Defendants’ Objections to
`
`the Court’s February 2, 2015 Order Requiring Defendants to Produce Documents
`
`for In Camera Review;
`
`18. Memorandum Order dated March 2, 2015 (Doc. No. 209), denying Defendants’
`
`Motion for Leave to File Affirmative Defense to Plaintiff’s Damages Claims and
`
`Request for Equitable Relief Based upon Unclean Hands (Doc. No. 188);
`
`19. Memorandum Order dated March 24, 2015 (Doc. No. 228), denying Defendants’
`
`Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 210);
`
`20. Memorandum Order dated March 24, 2015 (Doc. No. 229), denying Defendants’
`
`Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (Doc. No. 172);
`
`21. Memorandum Order dated April 9, 2015 (Doc. No. 287), granting or granting in
`
`part certain of Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine and denying certain of Defendants’
`
`Motions in Limine (Doc. Nos. 236, 237, 238, 246, 248, 250, 252, and 256);
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 442 Filed 07/27/15 Page 4 of 6
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Order dated April 10, 2015 (Doc. No. 293), denying Defendants’ Motion for
`
`Leave to File Supplemental Damages Expert Report (Doc. No. 282);
`
`Order dated April 20, 2015 (Doc. No. 314), sustaining certain of Plaintiff’s
`
`Objections to Defendants’ Exhibits, and overruling certain of Defendants’
`
`Objections to Plaintiff’s Exhibits (Doc. No. 301);
`
`Order dated April 21, 2015 (“Preliminary Jury Instructions,” Doc. No. 320),
`
`overruling certain of Defendants’ Objections to Preliminary Jury Instructions
`
`(Doc. No. 318);
`
`Order dated April 22, 2015 (Doc. No. 333), overruling Defendants’ Objections to
`
`Jury Verdict Form (Doc. No. 317);
`
`Order dated April 22, 2015 (Doc. No. 334), sustaining certain of Plaintiff’s
`
`Objections to Draft Final Jury Instructions (Doc. No. 315), and overruling certain
`
`of Defendants’ Objections to Draft Final Jury Instructions (Doc. No. 316), and
`
`“Final Jury Instructions Re: Damages” dated April 22, 2015 (Doc. No. 335);
`
`Order dated April 22, 2015 (Doc. No. 336), sustaining Plaintiff’s Objections and
`
`Overruling Defendants’ Objections to Designation of Deposition Excerpts (Doc.
`
`Nos. 326-329);
`
`Text Order dated April 28, 2015 (Doc. No. 351), granting in part and denying in
`
`part Plaintiff’s Motion for a Curative Instruction;
`
`Text Order dated April 30, 2015 (Doc. No. 359), denying Defendants’ Motion for
`
`Judgment as a Matter of Law;
`
`Order and Memorandum Opinion dated June 12, 2015 (Doc. Nos. 403, 404),
`
`granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees under Rule 37, granting in part and denying
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 442 Filed 07/27/15 Page 5 of 6
`
`in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Pre-Judgment Interest, granting in part and denying
`
`in part Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for an Exceptional Case Finding and an
`
`Award of Attorneys’ Fees, and granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Post-Judgment
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ James E. Hopenfeld
`James E. Hopenfeld (pro hac vice)
`Attorney-in-Charge
`CA Bar No. 190268
`E-mail: Hopenfeld@oshaliang.com
`Tammy J. Terry (pro hac vice)
`Texas Bar No. 24045660
`E-mail: Terry@oshaliang.com
`OSHA LIANG LLP
`909 Fannin Street, Suite 3500
`Houston, TX 77010-1034
`Phone: (713) 228-8600
`Fax: (713) 228-8778
`
`COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS
`PARROT S.A. AND PARROT, INC.
`
`Interest.
`
`Dated: July 27, 2015
`
`
`
`Eric G. Soller, Esquire
`PA I.D. #65560
`EGS@Pietragallo.com
`Firm I.D. #834
`PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK &
`RASPANTI, LLP
`The Thirty-Eighth Floor
`One Oxford Centre
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`Phone: (412) 263-1836
`Fax: (412) 263-4242
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 442 Filed 07/27/15 Page 6 of 6
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on July 27, 2015, the foregoing document, Defendants Parrot S.A. and
`
`Parrot, Inc.’s Notice of Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1295, was filed electronically with the Clerk
`
`of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel
`
`of record via email as follows:
`
`Richard T. Ting
`John C. Thomas III
`Charles H. Dougherty, Jr.
`Clay Hughes
`Beck & Thomas, P.C.
`1575 McFarland Road
`Suite 100
`Pittsburgh, PA 15216
`Phone: 412-343-9700
`Fax: 412-343-5787
`
`
`
`/s/ James E. Hopenfeld
`James E. Hopenfeld
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
