
    PILEPRO, L.L.C.; Blue Emerald, Incorporated, Formerly Known as PilePro, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Roberto R. Wendt, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. Richard HEINDL, Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, Steelcom Limited, Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant.
    No. 16-50163
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed February 13, 2017
    Andrew S. Brown, Brown Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Austin, TX, Rebecca Ashley Ap-plewhite, Austin, TX, Roger James George, Jr., Trial Attorney, George Brothers Kincaid & Horton, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee
    Andrew S. Brown, Brown Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Austin, TX, Rebecca Ashley Ap-plewhite, Austin, TX, Roger James George, Jr., Trial Attorney, George Brothers Kincaid & Horton, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees
    Andrew C. Callari, Esq., Callari & Summers, Dana Point, CA, Ryan D. V. Greene, Terrill Firm, P.C., Austin, TX, Douglass Dodson Hearne, Jr., Austin, TX, G. Alan Waldrop, Waldrop Firm, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This is a dispute between two former business associates, Roberto Wendt and Richard Heindl. The plaintiffs sued for damages under RICO and state law. After the disputes. were clarified in the briefs and at oral argument, the parties agree that only one issue remains for resolution: whether the district court erred in declaring the ownership of non-party Contexo, a company that ultimately received certain patent rights for modular connectors.

After a thorough bench trial, the district court denied all claims for damages and made certain declarations regarding ownership interests, including that “Contexo is wholly or partially owned by PilePro LLC, Enrico Farroni, and Roland Harzenmozer.” We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law and pertinent portions of the record and have heard extensive arguments from counsel. We see no reversible error in the district court’s careful examination of the complex facts and conflicting claims.

The judgment is AFFIRMED. We make no comment on the effect of the judgment on non-parties. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be 
        published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     