Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Main Menu

A.G. Findings & MFG. Co. D/B/A Ballastic Case CO. vs Valor Communication, Inc.

Court:
Southern District of Florida
Subject Matter:
Patent
Procedural Posture:
Scheduling Conference
  • A.G. Findings & MFG. Co. D/B/A Ballastic Case CO. vs Valor Communication, Inc.
    A.G. Findings & MFG. Co. D/B/A Ballastic Case CO. vs Valor Communication, Inc.
    A.G. Findings & MFG. Co. D/B/A Ballastic Case CO. vs Valor Communication, Inc., Case Number 0:13-cv-62155-PAS, Scheduling Conference 2/21/2014, 9:00 A.M. (EST). Wilkie D. Ferguson Jr. United States Courthouse -- Florida Southern District Court, Miami, FL, Judge Patricia A. Seitz presiding.

    A.G. Findings & MFG. Co. D/B/A Ballastic Case CO. vs Valor Communication, Inc., Case Number 0:13-cv-62155-PAS, Scheduling...

Case Summary: 13-cv-62155

Plaintiff, A.G. Findings and Manufacturing Co., filed a complaint against Defendant, Valor Communication, Inc., for patent infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, and unfair business practices under the laws of the State of Florida.  Plaintiff manufactures and sells a distinctive, protective cellular phone case, for which it maintains a patent.  Defendant sells a very similar cellular phone case, which is not manufactured by Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant infringed on its intellectual property rights by manufacturing, causing to be manufactured, and/or selling an almost identical cellular phone case. Defendant countered that Plaintiff did not have a valid patent or, alternatively, that Defendant’s product did not infringe on the patent. 

This video shows a pretrial conference, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Plaintiff and Defendant inform the court regarding the designs of their respective cellular phone cases, and the Plaintiff elaborated on its breach of contract claim.  The court directed the Defendant to amend its pleading. 

Case Highlights

  • Complaint filed 10/03/2013 (Doc #1)
  • Defendant’s Answer to Complaint 1/09/2014 (Doc #14)
  • Scheduling Report and Discovery Plan  2/14/2014 (Doc #23)
  • Plaintiff’s Answer to Counterclaim  6/09/2014 (Doc #52)

Case-related documents, including those referenced above, are available via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service. For more information, visit Pacer.gov.