Steve Neville et al v. Aldridge Construction, Inc. et al, No. 2:2017cv08929 - Document 143 (C.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Andrew J. Guilford, the Court ORDERS AND ADJUDGES as follows: 1. Final Judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs. 2. With respect to the cast version of the M-Pile tip, defendants do not infringe claims 1-4, 6-11, 14-19, 22-27, 29, and 32-33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,914,236 ("the '236 patent"). 3. With respect to the cast version of the M-Pile tip, defendants do not infringe claims 1-16, 19-22, 25-28, 31-32, 34-37, and 39 of U.S. Patent No. 9,284,708 ("the '708 patent"). 4. The Court retains jurisdiction over this cause and over the parties for the purposes of entering all further post-judgment orders that are just and proper. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (es)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Steve Neville et al v. Aldridge Construction, Inc. et al Doc. 143 1 2 3 JS-6 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SOUTHERN DIVISION Case No. 2:17-cv-08929-AG (AGRx) STEVE NEVILLE, SUBSTRUCTURE SUPPORT, INC., and TDP SUPPORT, FINAL JUDGMENT INC., Plaintiffs, Hon. Andrew J. Guilford 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 v. ALDRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ALDRIDGE ELECTRIC, INC., FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTORS, INC., FOUNDATION PILE, INC., GONSALVES & SANTUCCI, INC., HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO., M-PILE SALES, LLC, MAGCO DRILLING, INC., MATT CONSTRUCTION CORP., SHORING ENGINEERS, and STRUCTURAL SHOTCRETE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL RONALD REAGAN FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 411 WEST 4TH STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92701-4516 25 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com FINAL JUDGMENT 1 2 Having determined defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (see 3 D.E. 140), and having granted the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Remaining 4 Claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Court ORDERS AND 5 ADJUDGES as follows: 6 1. Final Judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs. 7 2. With respect to the cast version of the M-Pile tip, defendants do not 8 infringe claims 1-4, 6-11, 14-19, 22-27, 29, and 32-33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,914,236 9 (“the ‘236 patent”). 10 3. With respect to the cast version of the M-Pile tip, defendants do not 11 infringe claims 1-16, 19-22, 25-28, 31-32, 34-37, and 39 of U.S. Patent No. 12 9,284,708 (“the ‘708 patent”). 13 14 15 16 4. The Court retains jurisdiction over this cause and over the parties for the purposes of entering all further post-judgment orders that are just and proper. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Anaheim, California, this 10th day of October 2019. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: October 10, 2019 Honorable Andrew J. Guilford UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
