Brady Construction Innovations Inc v. California Expanded Metal Products Company
| Brady Construction Innovations Inc |
| California Expanded Metal Products Company |
| 2:2007cv00217 |
| January 9, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Los Angeles |
| Marc L. Goldman |
| Alicemarie H. Stotler |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Brady Construction Innovations Inc v. California Expanded Metal Products Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: California Expanded Metal Products Company | |
| Represented By: | Jesse A Rothwell |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Brady Construction Innovations Inc | |
| Represented By: | Ary Chang |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
