Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings Inc

Filing 538

ORDER (Memorandum 537 filed previously as separate docket entry): It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Stay of '831 patent claims imposed by order 428 of ct dated 9/12/13 LIFTED.; 2. MTD 483 w/ prejudice claims re: '831 patent, Cts I & II o f 2nd amended complaint 102 by pltf Arlington is GRANTED.; 3. Clrk of Ct directed to DEFER entry of jdgmt until conclusion of case.; 4. MSJ 486 & costs on Cts I & III of amended complaint filed by deft Bridgeport is DENIED. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/31/15. (ki)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC., Defendant : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06-CV-1105 (Chief Judge Conner) ORDER AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2015, upon consideration of plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 483) to dismiss with prejudice claims related to United States Patent Number 6,521,831 (“the ‘831 patent”) and defendant’s motion (Doc. 486) to lift stay and for summary judgment and costs on same, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The stay of the ‘831 patent claims imposed by the order (Doc. 428) of court dated September 12, 2013 is LIFTED. 2. The motion (Doc. 483) to dismiss with prejudice claims related to the ‘831 patent, Counts I and III of the second amended complaint (Doc. 102), filed by plaintiff Arlington Industries, Inc., is GRANTED. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to defer entry of judgment until the conclusion of the case. 4. The motion (Doc. 486) for summary judgment and costs on Counts I and III of the amended complaint, filed by defendant Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., is DENIED. /S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania

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?