⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “M & G USA Corporation”

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · 2019-05-06 · Published · cited 2× · 599 B.R. 256
BRENDAN LINEHAN SHANNON, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Before the Court is the Motion of the Construction Lienholder Group for Allowance and Payment of Administrative Expense for Substantial Contribution [Docket No. 1555]. By this Motion, the Construction *259Lienholder Group2 seeks allowance and payment of profes
In re M&G USA Corp.public domain
Loudoun County Circuit Court · 2015-04-09 · Published · cited 0× · 90 Va. Cir. 163
By Judge Thomas D. Horne This is a petition seeking a pure bill of discovery and production of documents from Donald Berlin and Investigative Consultants. M&G USA is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business located in West Virginia. M&G Polymers USA is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business located in Ohio and a wholly owned subsidiary of M&G US
District Court, D. Delaware · 2014-03-31 · Published · cited 1× · 35 F. Supp. 3d 583; 2014 WL 1292223; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42834
MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs INVISTA North America S.a.r.l. (“Invista”) and Auriga Polymers Inc.1 (“Auriga”) (collectively, “plaintiffs”) sued M & G USA Corporation and M & G Polymers USA, LLC (collectively, “defendants”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,919,159 (“the 159 patent), 7,943,216 (“the ’216
District Court, D. Delaware · 2013-06-25 · Published · cited 1× · 951 F. Supp. 2d 604; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88641; 2013 WL 3196770
MEMORANDUM OPINION SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge. 1. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs INVISTA North America S.a.r.l. and Auriga Polymers Inc.1 (collectively, “Invista”) are suing M & G USA Corporation and M & G Polymers USA, LLC (collectively, “M & G”) for infringement of United States Patent Nos. No. 7,919,159 (“the '159 pat
District Court, D. Delaware · 2013-06-25 · Published · cited 1× · 951 F. Supp. 2d 626; 2013 WL 3196817; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88646
MEMORANDUM OPINION SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs INVISTA North America S.á.r.l. (“Invista NA”) and Auriga Polymers Inc. (“Auriga Polymers”)1 (collectively, “Invista”) are suing M & G USA Corporation (“M & G Corp.”) and M & G Polymers USA, LLC (“M & G LLC”) (collectively, “M & G”) for infringement of
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2025-07-09 · Published · cited 20× · 143 F.4th 222
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1675 Doc: 41 Filed: 07/09/2025 Pg: 1 of 14 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1675 SYSCO MACHINERY CORPORATION, a Taiwan corporation Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DCS USA CORPORATION, d/b/a Dorey Converting System
District Court, District of Columbia · 2021-06-04 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M3 USA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 20-2903 (RDM) v. SUMMER QAMOUM, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff M3 USA Corporation (“M3”) brings this action against two of its former emp
District Court, District of Columbia · 2021-06-07 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M3 USA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 20-2903 (RDM) v. SUMMER QAMOUM, et al., Defendants. AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Amending the memorandum opinion and order filed on June 4, 2021)
District Court, S.D. New York · 2002-08-26 · Published · cited 2× · 218 F. Supp. 2d 480; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16432; 2002 WL 2008219
218 F.Supp.2d 480 (2002) MACSTEEL INTERNATIONAL USA CORP., Plaintiff, v. M/V IBN ABDOUN, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, etc., United Arab Shipping Co. (S.A.G.), Cargill Marine & Terminal Inc., and Cargo Carriers, Defendants. No. 99 CIV. 4562(CBM). United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 26, 2002. *481 Harold M. Kin
District Court, S.D. New York · 2001-08-03 · Published · cited 4× · 154 F. Supp. 2d 826; 2001 A.M.C. 2841; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11151; 2001 WL 882989
154 F.Supp.2d 826 (2001) MACSTEEL INTERNATIONAL USA CORP., Plaintiff, v. M/V IBN ABDOUN, her engines, boilers, tackle, etc., United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G.), Cargill Marine & Terminal Inc. (Cargo Carriers), Celtic Marine Corp., Defendants. No. 99 CIV. 4562(CBM). United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 3, 2001. *827
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2020-03-11 · Published · cited 0× · 952 F.3d 1325
Case: 19-1561 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 03/11/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ICCS USA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2019-1561 ______________________ Appeal from the Uni
District Court, District of Columbia · 2017-11-13 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 17-1648 (JEB) HISENSE USA CORPORATION and HISENSE INTERNATIONAL (HONG KONG) AMERICA INVESTMENT CO. LTD., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Should a federal cou
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014-08-13 · Published · cited 0× · 568 F. App'x 898
JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2014-09-29 · Published · cited 0× · 57 F. Supp. 3d 389; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137104; 2014 WL 4828878
MEMORANDUM MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge. This case concerns issues of first impression in Pennsylvania in a dispute over whether an oil and gas land lease was extended or expired by its own terms. Before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (E
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · 2012-05-10 · Published · cited 1× · 369 S.W.3d 626; 2012 WL 1638501; 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 3690
OPINION LAURA CARTER HIGLEY, Justice. Boccard USA Corporation sued Ray-theon Company seeking to hold it liable for a breach of contract by Raytheon Company’s former third-tier subsidiary, United *629 Engineers International, Inc. (“United Engineers”) based on the theory of a
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2017-06-14 · Published · cited 15× · 132 Fed. Cl. 419; 2017 U.S. Claims LEXIS 660; 2017 WL 2570912
Patent infringement; Invalidity disclosures; Indefiniteness; Timeliness; Scheduling order. ORDER BRUGGINK, Judge. Pending in this patent litigation are two motions: plaintiffs motion to strike from defendant and third-party defendants’ expert reports invalidity defenses based on indefiniteness to the extent not raised in those pa
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · 2018-07-02 · Published · cited 4× · 587 B.R. 43
Sontchi, J. *45INTRODUCTION 2 Before the Court is Defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to dismiss the Trustee's single-count Complaint seeking payment for services previously rendered. The Motion incorporates both factual and facial challenges to the Adversary Pr
District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2002-03-14 · Published · cited 1× · 190 F. Supp. 2d 854; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4345; 2002 WL 397471
190 F.Supp.2d 854 (2002) M & G POLYMERS USA, LLC a Delaware limited liability company fka Shell Polyesters LLC, Plaintiff, v. CNC CONTAINERS CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant. No. CIV.A. 3:01-0992. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia. Huntington Division. March 14, 2002. *855 Susan M. Cook, Hogan &
Indiana Tax Court · 2015-12-18 · Published · cited 5× · 45 N.E.3d 888; 2015 Ind. Tax LEXIS 80
ORDER ON PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WENTWORTH, J. Columbia Sportswear USA Corporation challenges the Indiana Department of State Revenue’s assessment of adjusted gross income tax (AGIT) for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 tax years (the “years at issue”). The matter is currently before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgmen
Indiana Court of Appeals · 1993-10-28 · Published · cited 2× · 622 N.E.2d 1007; 1993 Ind. App. LEXIS 1278; 1993 WL 433874
CONOVER, Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant G. Cowser Construction, Inc. (Cowser) appeals the Lake Superi- or Court, Room Five’s judgment in its favor foreclosing a mechanic’s lien and awarding money damages against Defendants-Appellants John M. Nicksic and Mary Nicksic, husband and wife, and American Savings, FSB, a United States Corporation (collectively, Nicksic). We affirm. The issues