Free Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 56.6 kB
Pages: 1
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 307 Words, 2,273 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/19666/102-2.pdf

Download Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Connecticut ( 56.6 kB)


Preview Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Connecticut
(X Case :02-cv-01723-Ai Document102—2 Fi|edé11./1§/2004 Page1of1
. INT1-IEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F I L E · _
· FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT D
ZUUU AUG -5 P I= 3b l
EASCO HAND TOOLS, INC., )
ARMSTRONG TOOLS INC., KINGSLEY ) U.S. DIST? OURT .
TOOLS INC., LEA WAY HAND TOOL ) Civil Action No. 3:02 0MR7BFi¤4g&(%T I
CORPORATION, AND MATCO TOOLS ) '
co1u>oRAT10N, ) C`/”"“
)
Plaintiffs, ) I
· >
vs. ) August 5,2004
. _ )
i HU, HOU—FEI, a/k/a BOBBY HU, )
)
Defendant. )

l
DEFENDANT HU’S MOTION T0 DISMISS
g THE ORIGINAL 1747 CASE
· J. Hoke Peacock IH I ‘ _
y Federal Bar No. ct24230 I `·
; SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
E 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100. _ I W
·` 3:02cv1723 (AVC). November 10, 2004. This is an action for a —
é declaratory judgment. The plaintiffs and counterclaim- .
~ defendants, Easco Hand Tools, Inc., Armstrong Tools, Inc.,
1 Kingsley Tools Inc ., and Lea Way Hand Tool Corporation, seek a
é declaration that they have not infringed theso-called ‘3B7 if
? patent held by the defendant and counterclaim—plaintiff, Bobby
; Hu. The patent covers reversible ratchet. wrench technology. By é
way of counterclaim, Hu alleges that the plaintiffs willfull_y . ' ".
j infringed his patents and engaged in trade secret
I misappropriation. The defendant now moves for voluntarily
Ig . dismissal of all claims pending in this matter. and to dismiss all
{L claims pending in the counterclaim. for wanthof. subject matter _l
jurisdiction. The motion for voluntary dismissal of they _
, complaint is GRANTED. The motion to dismiss the counterclaim ·for _
g want of subject matter jurisdiction is aljso ‘·‘‘’ granted. T
V dismissal of the counterclaim is for want of subject m§·§;r
jurisdiction, dismissal_i _' ••. rejudice. g t
_ xr.; .;;¤¢¢s`=f-w .%.‘r.‘ 4. »¢ · . ~ _ ’ . i ;= w - 1<’ .
{; A “ ¤. ’.·‘ -9,; __ I · ¤ . _ :5
. United tates .Di‘¤tri»ct Judge 4 · 9 ··¤
I I " ·¢·
. O°‘crYt7’·$.¢*4·’>"($ ., . ._