Deliver Your News to the World

U.S. Court For Central District Of California Denies American Pipe Lining, Inc.’s Reconsideration Request In Patent Dispute With ACE DuraFlo® Systems, LLC


ACE DuraFlo® Systems, LLC (ACE) announced today that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied American Pipe Lining, Inc’s (APL) request that the Court reconsider its January 29, 2007 ruling in favor of ACE. On January 29 the Court found that ACE had not infringed, induced others to infringe or contributed to the infringement of United States Patent No. 5,707,702 (the “‘702 patent”).

The ‘702 patent, owned by the US, is licensed to APL and sublicensed to Nu Flow America, Inc. In August 2005, ACE was threatened with patent infringement by APL. APL failed to provide any evidence of infringement. To clear the matter, ACE filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court against APL, as part of an ongoing dispute with APL, Nu Flow America Inc, Nu Flow Technologies (2000) Inc, Bill Howe Plumbing, Inc and others. ACE sought a declaration that ACE had not infringed, induced others to infringe or contributed to the infringement of the ‘702 patent (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. SACV05-1039 DDP (CTx). APL filed a counterclaim against ACE and its parent company for patent infringement.

In denying APL’s request for reconsideration, the Court found that APL failed to provide any newly discovered material or relevant facts. The Court therefore affirmed its prior ruling that neither ACE nor any of its franchisees infringes or has ever infringed the ‘702 patent.

Larry Gillanders, CEO, Chief Technology Officer for ACE, commented, “Once again, APL’s assertions were so baseless that APL could not and did not provide any newly discovered or relevant facts. We believe APL was reckless in bringing this infringement case against us and continued along their same path of recklessness in requesting reconsideration when they had no new evidence or newly discovered material. We intend to file a motion asking the Court to require APL to pay ACE’s attorneys’ fees incurred in defending these baseless actions.”


This news content was configured by WebWire editorial staff. Linking is permitted.

News Release Distribution and Press Release Distribution Services Provided by WebWire.