Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equipment, Inc.

Good Law
271 F. Supp. 3d 1172
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 12, 2017No. 2:16-cv-00148-KJM-EFBCalifornia4,769 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mueller, J.

ORDER

Plaintiff Advanced Steel Recovery sues defendants X-Body Equipment, Inc. and Jewell Attachments, LLC, alleging defendants’ “Acculoader” product infringes plaintiffs patent. Defendants’ second motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment, is before the court, Mot., ECF Nos. 47, 54. Defendants also move for sanctions. See Mot.

The court submitted the matter after a hearing at .which Mark Nielsen. and C. Wook Pak appeared for plaintiff and Robert Harkins appeared for defendants. Mins., ECF No. 66. As explained below, the court DENIES defendants’ motion to. dismiss, DENIES defendants’ motion'for summary judgment, and DENIES defendants’ motion for sanctions.

I.' PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

On January 25, 2016, plaintiff filed the 'original complaint for monetary damages, alleging defendants ’ infringed plaintiffs United States Patent 9,056,731 (the ’731 Patent). Compl. ¶¶ 15-16, ECF No. 1, The product on which plaintiff bases its claims of infringement is called the “Acculoader,” which loads scrap metal and other materials into transport containers. Id. ¶ 21. Specifically, plaintiff alleges several claims in the ’731 Patent were issued…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.