PilePro, L.L.C., et al v. Humphrey Chang, et al, No. 16-50163 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-50163 Document: 00513872402 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-50163 FILED February 13, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk PILEPRO, L.L.C.; BLUE EMERALD, INCORPORATED, Formerly Known as PilePro, Incorporated, Plaintiffs–Appellees, ROBERTO R. WENDT, Plaintiff– Counter Defendant– Appellee, versus RICHARD HEINDL, Defendant– Third Party Plaintiff– Appellant, STEELCOM LIMITED, Third Party Plaintiff– Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:12-CV-829 Case: 16-50163 Document: 00513872402 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 No. 16-50163 Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * This is a dispute between two former business associates, Roberto Wendt and Richard Heindl. The plaintiffs sued for damages under RICO and state law. After the disputes were clarified in the briefs and at oral argument, the parties agree that only one issue remains for resolution: whether the district court erred in declaring the ownership of non-party Contexo, a company that ultimately received certain patent rights for modular connectors. After a thorough bench trial, the district court denied all claims for damages and made certain declarations regarding ownership interests, including that “Contexo is wholly or partially owned by PilePro LLC, Enrico Farroni, and Roland Harzenmozer.” We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law and pertinent portions of the record and have heard extensive arguments from counsel. We see no reversible error in the district court’s careful examination of the complex facts and conflicting claims. The judgment is AFFIRMED. We make no comment on the effect of the judgment on non-parties. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.