Arlington Industries v. Bridgeport Fittings
| 3:2002cv00134 |
| January 28, 2002 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Scranton Office |
| A. Richard Caputo |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
407
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 3/29/2017. (rm)
|
|
Filing
388
ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry),. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 334 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Bridgeport Should Not Be Held in Contempt filed by Arlington Industries, Inc. is GRANTED in part and DENIED in pat. Arlington's request to conduct additional discovery is GRANTED with respect to the Demo Kits only. Arlington's request to conduct additional discovery with respect to any other matter is DENIED. Both parties may filed supplemental memoranda discussing their positions post-discovery by 3/1/17. At this time, Arlington's requests for fees and sanctions are DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that an EVIDENTIARY HEARING on whether this Court should hold Bridgeport in civil contempt is set for 3/8/2017 09:00 AM in Wilkes-Barre - Courtroom 3 before Honorable A. Richard Caputo.Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 12/7/16. (jam)
|
|
Filing
355
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 312 MOTION for Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Expenses filed by Arlington Industries, Inc. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 6/28/16. (jam)
|
|
Filing
300
Judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit AFFIRMING the Decision of the District Court, signed by Daniel E. O'Toole, Clerk of Court. Judgment AFFIRMED on 8/10/2015. (bg)
|
|
Filing
288
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1) Page 26 of the Court's June 23, 2014 Memorandum 283 should read " $1,527,632.35" instead of "$1,429,244.23". 2) Arlington's motion to vacate the June 23, 2014 order 284 in support of additional fees and costs is denied without prejudice. 3) Arlington's motion to supplement the Court's June 23, 2014 award for the services of Mr. Lunci is denied. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 7/2/14. (ts)
|
|
Filing
284
ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry):IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1)Plaintiff Arlington Industries, Inc. is awarded $495,648.79 in lost profits, plus $33,918.61 in pre-judgment interest.(2)Plaintiff Arlington Industries, Inc. is awarded $1,527,632.35 in attorneys fees plus $282,839.55 in costs and expenses. (3)The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case as CLOSED. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 6/23/14. (jam)
|
|
Filing
210
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 196 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal filed by Bridgeport Fittings Inc Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 11/4/13. (jam)
|
|
Filing
192
MEMORANDUM (Order filed as a separate document) Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 3/19/13. (ts)
|
|
Filing
165
ORDER re 164 Memorandum (Order to follow as separate docket entry) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.133) is DENIED. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 10/25/12. (jam)
|
|
Filing
130
ORDER re 129 Memorandum (Order to follow as separate docket entry). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the three motions in limine (Docs. 98, 100, & 104) before the Court in this matter are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS:1.Plaintiff Arli ngton Industries, Inc.s Motion in Limine to Exclude Bridgeports Arguments and Evidence Concerning Unmodified Features of the Accused Products and Bridgeports Waived Defenses (Doc. 100) is GRANTED insofar as Bridgeport is prohibited from presenting ar guments of non-infringement pertaining to any limitation unaffected by the redesign of its connectors. Limitations two and three of Claim 1 of the 488 Patent will be the only limitations at issue in the upcoming contempt hearing. Arlingtons request to import the earlier claim constructions into the instant motion for contempt is DENIED. 2.Plaintiff Arlington Industries, Inc.s Motion in Limine to Exclude Bridgeports Arguments and Evidence Concerning Randomly Chosen Features (Doc. 98) is GRANTED to the extent that the purported lack of a lip and the lack of a smooth surface in the Accused Connectors are randomly chosen features that will be excluded from the contempt hearing. It is DENIED as to Bridgeports argument pertaining to an adapter fully surrounding the leading edge and to the extent it seeks to preclude additional differences proposed by Bridgeports expert to the extent they are relevant. 3.Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Christopher D. Rahn Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702 (Doc. 104) is GRANTED solely as to Dr. Rahns Opinions about Bridgeports Intent. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 8/17/12. (jam, )
|
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 Pennsylvania Middle 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: Arlington Industries v. Bridgeport Fittings | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
