From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 9, 2012
CASE NO. SACV 02-578 AG (ANx) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 9, 2012)

Summary

declining to award costs in patent infringement case where defendants were "only partially successful in litigating" the case

Summary of this case from Pipe Restoration Techs., LLC v. Coast Bldg. & Plumbing, Inc.

Opinion

CASE NO. SACV 02-578 AG (ANx)

07-09-2012

ULTIMAX CEMENT MANUFACTURING CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CTS CEMENT MANUFACTURING CORP. d/b/a CTS CEMENT MANUFACTURING CO., et al., Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM


JUDGMENT

Following a jury trial of this matter on September 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, and 30, 2011, and October 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20, 2011, the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Defendants CTS Cement Manufacturing Corporation, Edward K. Rice, Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, Blue Daisy Cement Products, Inc., A & A Ready Mix Concrete, Inc., Sir-Mix Concrete Products, Inc., and White Cap Industries, Inc., (together, "Defendants") moved for judgment as a matter of law, under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on issues of shop right, co-inventorship, and non-infringement, and also moved for judgment as a matter of law on the grounds of laches, equitable estoppel, and obviousness ("Defendants' Motions"). Defendants' Motions came on regularly for hearing before the Court on April 16, 2012, the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford presiding. On April 20, 2012, the Court issued its Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Shop Right and Granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Laches and Estoppel. The parties' remaining motions were denied as moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:

1. Judgment is entered for Defendants and against Plaintiffs Ultimax Cement Manufacturing Corporation, Hassan Kunbargi, KA Group, and Heartland Cement Sales Company (together, "Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs shall take nothing against Defendants.
2. Defendants' Counter-Claim for Invalidity, Unenforceability, and Non-Infringement is dismissed as moot.
3. Defendants may recover costs of suit from Ultimax Cement Manufacturing Corporation, Hassan Kunbargi, and KA Group, but Defendants may not recover costs of suit from Heartland Cement Sales Company.

_________________________

Andrew J. Guilford

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 9, 2012
CASE NO. SACV 02-578 AG (ANx) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 9, 2012)

declining to award costs in patent infringement case where defendants were "only partially successful in litigating" the case

Summary of this case from Pipe Restoration Techs., LLC v. Coast Bldg. & Plumbing, Inc.
Case details for

Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ULTIMAX CEMENT MANUFACTURING CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CTS CEMENT…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 9, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. SACV 02-578 AG (ANx) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 9, 2012)

Citing Cases

Pipe Restoration Techs., LLC v. Coast Bldg. & Plumbing, Inc.

42. The Ninth Circuit has affirmed the denial of costs when, for instance, a prevailing plaintiff in a…