Salem Fabrication Technologies Group Inc

General

Total Cases3

Active Cases1

Patents--

CourtsM.D. North Carolina

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

salem-fabrication

salem-fabrication

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

L2

D

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
12/19/24	Glaston Corp v. HHH Equipment Resources 1:21-CV-00942 ( M.D. NC )	MEMORANDUM ORDER signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 12/19/2024; that Plaintiffs' request to strike the Final Invalidity Contentions is DENIED. Salem's request to amend its Final Invalidity Contentions with its Supplemental Final Contentions is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs is DENIED. (sh) (Entered: 12/19/2024)
12/18/24	Glaston Corp v. HHH Equipment Resources 1:21-CV-00942 ( M.D. NC )	NOTICE by GLASTON CORPORATION, UNIGLASS ENGINEERING OY re [150] MOTION for Summary Judgment (Notice of Service of Response in Opposition) (HOPKINS, CORRI) (Entered: 12/18/2024)
11/20/24	Glaston Corp v. HHH Equipment Resources 1:21-CV-00942 ( M.D. NC )	MOTION for Summary Judgment by SALEM FABRICATION TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.. Response to Motion due by 12/20/2024 (RINEHART, ANDREW) (Entered: 11/20/2024)
11/11/24	Glaston Corp v. HHH Equipment Resources 1:21-CV-00942 ( M.D. NC )	NOTICE of Intent to File Dispositive Motions by Defendant SALEM FABRICATION TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. (RINEHART, ANDREW) (Entered: 11/11/2024)
10/07/24	Glaston Corp v. HHH Equipment Resources 1:21-CV-00942 ( M.D. NC )	TEXT ORDER denying [148] Joint Motion to Modify Schedule. As noted in [148] Joint Motion, the Court (per the issuing Magistrate Judge) has granted multiple prior extensions of expert-related, scheduling order deadlines to accommodate illness and scheduling conflicts of two experts. In support of the last of those two extension requests, [146] Unopposed Motion to Modify Schedule, the parties assured the Court that "[t]h[o]se extensions will not impact any of the remaining deadlines in the case, or even other deadlines for other experts," as well as that "th[o]se extensions will not cause any delay in the case nor expand the current case schedule." Now, however, in [148] Joint Motion, the parties rely on the prior authorized delays, along with the fact that, "when attempting to schedule the deposition of [another expert], the [p]arties learned his only availability for deposition was the week of November 4-8, 2024," in support of a request for delays in scheduling order deadlines relating to dispositive motion briefing. Based on their prior requests, the parties knew that expert discovery would extend close to the dispositive motions deadline, but assured the Court that allowance of those extensions would not impact any other expert discovery or, most importantly, the dispositive motion briefing schedule. The Court relied on those assurances in granting the prior extensions. Moreover, nothing in [148] Joint Motion explains why the parties only now have learned of the deposition scheduling issues surrounding this additional expert. Finally, the Court notes that this case will soon pass the three-year mark, the default time-limit by which the Congress expects resolution of civil cases and after which the Court must explain a case's continued pendency. Delays in the completion of dispositive motion briefing will delay resolution of this case, including by trial (if necessary). Under these circumstances, the Court does not find good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) for the requested extension of scheduling order deadlines. Issued by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 10/07/2024. (AULD, L.) (Entered: 10/07/2024) TEXT ORDER denying [148] Joint Motion to Modify Schedule. As noted in [148] Joint Motion, the Court (per the issuing Magistrate Judge) has granted multiple prior extensions of expert-related, scheduling order deadlines to accommodate illness and scheduling conflicts of two experts. In support of the last of those two extension requests, [146] Unopposed Motion to Modify Schedule, the parties assured the Court that "[t]h[o]se extensions will not impact any of the remaining deadlines in the case, or even other deadlines for other experts," as well as that "th[o]se extensions will not cause any delay in the case nor expand the current case schedule." Now, however, in [148] Joint Motion, the parties rely on the prior authorized delays, along with the fact that, "when attempting to schedule the deposition of [another expert], the [p]arties learned his only availability for deposition was the week of November 4-8, 2024," in support of a request for delays in scheduling order deadlines relating to dispositive motion briefing. Based on their prior requests, the parties knew that expert discovery would extend close to the dispositive motions deadline, but assured the Court that allowance of those extensions would not impact any other expert discovery or, most importantly, the dispositive motion briefing schedule. The Court relied on those assurances in granting the prior extensions. Moreover, nothing in [148] Joint Motion explains why the parties only now have learned of the deposition scheduling issues surrounding this additional expert. Finally, the Court notes that this case will soon pass the three-year mark, the default time-limit by which the Congress expects resolution of civil cases and after which the Court must explain a case's continued pendency. Delays in the completion of dispositive motion briefing will delay resolution of this case, including by trial (if necessary). Under these circumstances, the Court does not find good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) for the requested extension of scheduling order deadlines. Issued by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 10/07/2024. (AULD, L.) (Entered: 10/07/2024)
10/04/24	Glaston Corp v. HHH Equipment Resources 1:21-CV-00942 ( M.D. NC )	Joint MOTION to Modify Schedule by SALEM FABRICATION TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.. (Attachments: # [1] Text of Proposed Order)(MORLOCK, MICHAEL) (Entered: 10/04/2024)
10/04/24	Glaston Corp v. HHH Equipment Resources 1:21-CV-00942 ( M.D. NC )	Motion Referred to MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD RE: [148] Joint MOTION to Modify Schedule. (ae) (Entered: 10/04/2024)
09/26/24	Glaston Corp v. HHH Equipment Resources 1:21-CV-00942 ( M.D. NC )	ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 9/26/2024; that the Unopposed Motion to Modify Schedule is hereby GRANTED and the deadlines are entered as set out herein. (sh) (Entered: 09/26/2024)
09/26/24	Glaston Corp v. HHH Equipment Resources 1:21-CV-00942 ( M.D. NC )	Motion Referred to MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD RE: [146] MOTION to Modify Schedule. (ae) (Entered: 09/26/2024)
09/25/24	Glaston Corp v. HHH Equipment Resources 1:21-CV-00942 ( M.D. NC )	MOTION to Modify Schedule by GLASTON CORPORATION, UNIGLASS ENGINEERING OY. Response to Motion due by 10/16/2024 (Attachments: # [1] Text of Proposed Order)(KLOS, AISLINN) (Entered: 09/25/2024)