Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alexsam, Inc. v. Barnes & Noble

April 26, 2013

ALEXSAM, INC.
v.
BARNES & NOBLE, INC. AND BARNES & NOBLE MARKETING SERVICES, LLC THE GAP INC. AND DIRECT CONSUMER SERVICES, LLC J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. AND J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION AND P2W, INC. NFP
TOYS "R" US-DELAWARE, INC. AND TRU-SVC, LLC
THE HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC. AND HOME DEPOT INCENTIVES, INC.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael H. Schneider United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The above-entitled and numbered civil actions were heretofore referred to United States Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Report of the Magistrate Judge which contains her proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such actions has been presented for consideration. Alexsam, Inc. filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding Alexsam's motion for partial summary judgment that the MobilGO system is not anticipatory prior art or evidence of conception of the Kmart system. Defendants filed a response to Alexsam's objections.

The Court conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions. Alexsam's objections are without merit. The Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.*fn1

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Alexsam's Objections to the Court's Report and Recommendation Regarding Alexsam's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that the MobilGO System is Not Anticipatory Prior Art or Evidence of Conception of the Kmart System (2:13-cv-3, Doc. No. 103); (2:13-cv-4, Doc. No. 104); (2:13-cv-5, Doc. No. 97); (2:13-cv-6, Doc. No. 100); (2:13-cv-7, Doc. No. 100); (2:13-cv-8, Doc. No. 98) are OVERRULED

It is further ORDERED that Alexsam's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that the MobilGO system is not Anticipatory Prior Art or Evidence of Conception of the Kmart System (2:13-cv-3, Doc. No. 23); (2:13-cv-4, Doc. No. 24); (2:13-cv-5, Doc. No. 25); (2:13-cv-6, Doc. No. 25); (2:13-cv-7, Doc. No. 25); (2:13-cv-8, Doc. No. 25) is DENIED.

It is SO ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.