American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Hammer & Steel, Inc.
Plaintiff: American Piledriving Equipment, Inc.
Defendant: Hammer & Steel, Inc.
Counter_claimant: Hammer & Steel, Inc.
Counter_defendant: American Piledriving Equipment, Inc.
Case Number: 4:2011cv00811
Filed: May 9, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: St. Louis Office
County: St. Louis - County
Presiding Judge: Catherine D. Perry
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 183
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 24, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 67 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's supplemental motion for summary judgment [# 33 ] is GRANTED, and defendant is entitled to summary judgment on all claims brought by plaintiff. As defendant agree d at oral argument that this ruling resolves its counterclaim, the counterclaim will be dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion for sanctions [# 34 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's moti on for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses [# 35 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's supplemental motion to strike the complaint [# 36 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion to strike portions of plaintiff's responses to defendant's statement of undisputed facts [# 50 ] is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion for leave to supplement the amount of attorneys' fees [# 56 ] is DENIED as moot. IT IS F URTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to stay the state court action or alternatively deny defendant all costs and expenses related to the inspection [# 60 ] is DENIED. Plaintiff shall reimburse defendant in the amount of $5,000.00 within thirty (30) days. A separate judgment in accordance with this Order is entered today. Signed by Honorable Catherine D. Perry on 04/24/2012. (CBL)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Hammer & Steel, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: American Piledriving Equipment, Inc.
Represented By: Wendy M. Menghini
Represented By: Craig J. Madson
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 ]
Defendant: Hammer & Steel, Inc.
Represented By: David M. Duree
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 ]
Counter_claimant: Hammer & Steel, Inc.
Represented By: David M. Duree
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 ]
Counter_defendant: American Piledriving Equipment, Inc.
Represented By: Wendy M. Menghini
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.


Why Is My Information Online?