Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 2006 WL 335846 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006)

Key Insight: Although court decided it could not hold either party in contempt, it advised that parties? exchange of emails and written correspondence did not satisfy meet and confer requirement contained in court’s earlier Case Management Order; court understood the phrase to mean “a conference in which opposing parties actually talk to one another”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Copyright © 2021, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.