Skyline Steel, L.L.C. v. Pilepro, L.L.C.
Plaintiff: Skyline Steel, L.L.C.
Defendant: Pilepro, L.L.C.
Case Number: 1:2013cv08171
Filed: November 15, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: XX Out of State
Presiding Judge: Jesse M. Furman
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Both
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
November 16, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 692 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 670 MOTION for Sanctions and Civil Contempt filed by Skyline Steel, L.L.C. For the reasons explained above, Skyline's motion for contempt and sanctions is GRANTED. No later than November 27, 2018 , Skyline shall file a letter brief addressing the amount of costs and attorney's fees it should be awarded as a result of the Court's decision, supported by contemporaneous billing records, affidavits, and other appropriate documentatio n. Any response to that letter brief shall be filed by November 30, 2018. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 670. SO ORDERED. (Brief due by 11/27/2018, Responses to Brief due by 11/30/2018) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/16/2018) (ne)
August 4, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 477 OPINION AND ORDER re: 446 AMENDED MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by Pilepro, L.L.C. For the foregoing reasons, PilePro's motion for summary judgment is DENIED in its entirety. By contrast, summary judgment is GRANTED in Sk yline's favor with respect to the question of whether PilePro acted in bad faith when it issued the Madonna Letter. Skyline's motion for attorneys' fees is also GRANTED in the amount of $82,656.32, and PilePro is directed to pay that amount within thirty days of this Opinion and Order. (As further set forth in this Order.) The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 446. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/4/2016) (cf)
August 27, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 412 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 386 MOTION for Attachment of Defendant's assets and turnover filed by Skyline Steel, L.L.C.: the Court concludes that Skyline fails to show through competent evidence that it is likely to pr evail on the merits of a claim that can serve as the basis for a writ of attachment pursuant to CPLR Section 6212(a). In light of that conclusion, the Court "need... not pass on [6212(a)'s] other elements," Buy This, 178 F. Supp. 2d at 386, and Skyline's motion is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 386. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/27/2015) (tn)
July 22, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 393 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: In light of the foregoing, Skyline's motion to reopen discovery on a limited basis is GRANTED. Specifically, the Court will reopen fact discovery for the limited purpose of discovery relating to PilePro's communications with counsel concerning the '543 Patent. Such discovery shall be limited to no more than two depositions and a limited number of interrogatories and requests for the production of documents to be agreed upon by the parties. (If, after meeting and conferring in good faith, the parties cannot agree on the number of interrogatories and requests for production, they shall bring their dispute to the Court's attention no later than August 5, 2015.) All fact discov ery shall be completed by September 2, 2015. Skyline is reminded that any discovery requests must be limited to information that is otherwise discoverable and relevant to the few claims remaining in this case. Further, any motions for summary j udgment - or, in the event no motion is filed, the parties' pretrial submissions - shall be filed no later than thirty days after the extended close of fact discovery. The parties are advised to consult the Court's Individual Rules an d Practices in Civil Cases for information on the format and substance of required pretrial submissions. Finally, PilePro and Skyline submitted many documents connected to Skyline's application in redacted form or under seal. Any party wi shing to keep any of those documents sealed or redacted shall file a letter brief, not to exceed five pages and no later than August 5, 2015, addressing the propriety of sealing or redacting the relevant documents in light of the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/22/2015) (tn)
June 15, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 349 OPINION AND ORDER re: 334 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 299 Memorandum & Opinion, filed by Skyline Steel, L.L.C.: For the reasons explained above, Skyline's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED in part and DENIED in p art. Specifically, the motion is granted with respect to any Infringement Warning posted on webpages pertaining to AZ Piles or connectors, and otherwise denied. Additionally, Skyline's request for fees and costs is GRANTED, and Skyline is awa rded $103,818.23. PilePro is not required to pay that amount, however, until after the conclusion of proceedings in this case and in the case brought against it by Shumway Van. Further, Skyline's request to file certain materials under se al is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Within one week of the date of this Opinion and Order, Skyline shall publicly file all necessary documents in redacted form. It shall also file with the Sealed Records Department unredacted copies of the relevant documents. Lastly, the parties shall confer with respect to whether and how, in light of this Opinion and Order, the Court should proceed with respect to the outstanding privilege waiver dispute, including whether any supplemental briefi ng is in order. Within one week, the parties shall submit a joint letter proposing a process and schedule for resolving any remaining disputes. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 334. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/15/2015) (tn)
April 24, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 299 OPINION AND ORDER re: 102 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . filed by Skyline Steel, L.L.C., 169 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Skyline Steel, L.L.C. For the foregoing reasons, Skyline's motion for partial sum mary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and its motion for spoliation sanctions is GRANTED. Further, although PilePro has not moved for it, PilePro is GRANTED summary judgment with respect to the issue of bad faith on all claims excep t for those arising out of the letter sent to Madonna. Within one week of the date of this Opinion and Order, the parties shall publicly file all necessary documents under seal, in redacted form, or unredacted, as the case may be. They shall also file with the Sealed Records Department all documents to be filed under seal. Additionally, Skyline shall submit its application for the fees and costs it incurred in pursuing spoliation sanctions within two weeks of the date of this Opinion and Order, and PilePro shall submit any opposition by one week later. Lastly, at the conference currently scheduled for April 29, 2015, the parties shall be prepared to discuss: (1) which of Skyline's claims remain in dispute given the Court' ;s rulings on summary judgment and which claims can be dismissed; (2) how the Court's ruling affects the privilege dispute currently under advisement; and (3) the possibility of settlement. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 102 and 169. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/24/2015) (tro)
March 5, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 242 OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Skyline's motion to strike is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the Court will not strike PilePro's Amended Answer in its entirety, but does DISMISS PilePro's countercla ims without prejudice to re-filing those counterclaims in the New Jersey Action. Given that decision, PilePro's motion (in the alternative) for leave to amend its Amended Answer to bring those counterclaims is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 122 and 138. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/5/2015) (kl)
February 9, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 204 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 175 MOTION to Strike Document No. 156 filed by Pilepro, L.L.C., 131 MOTION to Stay Counts One and Two of Skyline Steel, LLC's Second Amended Complaint Pending Reissue of Patent filed by Pilepro, L.L.C.: For the foregoing reasons, PilePro's motions to stay and to strike are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 131 and 175. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/9/2015) (tn)
January 28, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 195 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, PilePro's application is DENIED. See Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, No. 10-CV-4974 (RJS), 2012 WL 5992142, at *8 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2012), rev'd on other grounds, 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014) (declining to issue a Letter of Request because the the window of time in which to seek it had "long since closed" and the "request smack[ed] of gamesmanship designed to further delay discovery"). (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/28/2015) (tn)
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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Skyline Steel, L.L.C. v. Pilepro, L.L.C.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Skyline Steel, L.L.C.
Represented By: Aldo A Badini
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: Pilepro, L.L.C.
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?