Aretis Limited files corporate disclosure in patent suit against Flyyes Technology in California
Case Summary
Aretis Limited filed a corporate disclosure statement in a patent lawsuit against Flyyes Technology in the Northern District of California, docket 25-cv-07065. The disclosure complies with court rules requiring identification of interested entities.
No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.
Key Issues
- • Patent litigation
- • Corporate disclosure
- • Rule 7.1 compliance
Docket Snapshot
Court
N.D. Cal.
Northern District of California · 9th Circuit · CA
Docket
Not captured
Civil
Stage
Active litigation
Active
Filed
Date unavailable
Not in the available feed
Latest Filing
3:25-cv-07065 Aretis Limited v. Flyyes Technology PTE. Ltd.
Other · May 12, 2026
Coverage
0 articles
0 sources tracked
Participants
1 Defendant, 1 Plaintiff
2 linked entities
Judge
Not assigned in feed
What the record shows
This case is tied to Northern District of California, a federal district court in CA.
The newest docket activity we have is a other dated May 12, 2026.
The visible party/entity graph currently includes Flyyes Technology PTE. Ltd, Aretis Limited.
No independent press coverage is attached yet; this page is currently docket-led rather than media-led.
About This Court
Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.) is a federal district court in the 9th Circuit, CA.
Case Timeline
1 event3:25-cv-07065 Aretis Limited v. Flyyes Technology PTE. Ltd.
In the case Aretis Limited v. Flyyes Technology PTE. Ltd., the plaintiff filed a Certificate of Interested Entities and Corporate Disclosure Statement under Rule 7.1. This filing identifies any entities with a financial interest in the case, ensuring transparency about potential conflicts of interest. It helps the court and parties understand who might influence the litigation.
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more
Sources tracked
0 outlets · 0 articles
Timeline events
1 record on file
Last updated
1 day, 14 hours ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.