Anderson Power Products, Inc. v. Bizlink Technology, Inc.
Infringement action filed 23 Oct 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and closed 15 May 2026, with US8808017B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case stayed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8808017B2
- Application no.
- US13/734025
- Case no.
- 4:23-cv-05436
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- Araceli Martinez-Olguin
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 23 Oct 2023 – 15 May 2026
- Duration
- 935 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Stayed
- Products & marks
- BC-330 series plug · BSC-301 series receptacle · Saf-D-Grid®
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Electrical connector with anti-arcing feature
A novel connector pair suppresses arcing during connection and disconnection. In one general aspect of the invention, first and second insulating barriers are configured to extend beyond corresponding first and second contacts, the barriers being arranged to cover a leading end of at least one of the contacts, and to engage with each other when the contacts are separated by a small gap, thereby closing off substantially all through-air arcing paths between them. In another general aspect of the invention, at least one electrical contact in a connector pair is a bimetal contact having a transitional segment made from high resistivity metal. The transitional segment is configured to make first and last contact during the initial phases of mating and un-mating, thereby increasing electrical resistance and significantly lowering the electrical current and the energy available for electrical arcing.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 19 Aug 2014
- Est. expiry
- 25 Apr 2033
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2024-00687 · Patentability · filed by BIZLINK TECHNOLOGY, INC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- YORK, CHARLES L · DAVIES, BRIAN F
- Classification
- H01R13/53
- Prosecution counsel
- Greenberg Traurig, LLP
- Examiner
- JOHNSON, AMY COHEN
Parties of record
Anderson Power Products, Inc.
- Core tech
- H01R13/53
- Counsel
- Benjamin Patrick Gilford · James J. Lukas · Nicholas A. Brown · Patrick Joseph Owens
- Firm
- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Greenberg Traurig LLP
Bizlink Technology, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jeffrey D. Smyth · Kai Rajan · Ming-Tao Yang
- Firm
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Benjamin Patrick Gilford | Anderson Power Products, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| James J. Lukas | Anderson Power Products, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Nicholas A. Brown | Anderson Power Products, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Patrick Joseph Owens | Anderson Power Products, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jeffrey D. Smyth | Bizlink Technology, Inc. | Defendant |
| Kai Rajan | Bizlink Technology, Inc. | Defendant |
| Ming-Tao Yang | Bizlink Technology, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“On February 12, 2025, the Court ordered this action stayed pending inter partes review. Dkt. No. 69. Since then, the parties reported that the process before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) concluded with a final written decision determining that certain claims of the patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,808,017, are unpatentable and that at least one claim of the patent is not unpatentable. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 74. Plaintiff Anderson Power Products, Inc., has since appealed the PTAB’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Dkt. No. 75. The parties jointly request that this case remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The Court GRANTS the parties’ request; the case remains STAYED. Given the procedural posture, the Court ORDERS that the instant case is CLOSED for statistical purposes only. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as a dismissal or disposition of the action, and should further proceedings become necessary herein, any party may initiate them in the same manner as if this Order had not been entered. // // // // Case 4:23-cv-05436-AMO Document 77 Filed 05/14/26 Page 1 of 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Northern District of California Within 30 days of the resolution of the appeal, the parties shall file a status report on the docket and advise whether the case should be terminated and/or other actions which should be taken.”
Case 4:23-cv-05436 · N.D. Cal. · closed 15 May 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 4:23-cv-05436?
4:23-cv-05436 is a patent infringement action brought by Anderson Power Products, Inc. against Bizlink Technology, Inc., filed on 23 Oct 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case closed on 15 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 4:23-cv-05436?
US8808017B2 (“Electrical connector with anti-arcing feature”), assigned to ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS, INC., currently active. The record also lists BC-330 series plug, BSC-301 series receptacle and Saf-D-Grid®.
How was case 4:23-cv-05436 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case stayed. The termination text reads: “On February 12, 2025, the Court ordered this action stayed pending inter partes review. Dkt. No. 69. Since then, the parties reported that the process before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) concluded with a final written decision determining that certain claims of the patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,808,017, are unpatentable and that at least one claim of the patent is not unpatentable. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 74. Plaintiff Anderson Power Products, Inc., has since appealed the PTAB’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Dkt. No. 75. The parties
How long did case 4:23-cv-05436 take?
935 calendar days, from filing on 23 Oct 2023 to closure on 15 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:23-cv-05436?
Chief Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin presided. Benjamin Patrick Gilford, James J. Lukas, Nicholas A. Brown and Patrick Joseph Owens are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Anderson Power Products. Jeffrey D. Smyth, Kai Rajan and Ming-Tao Yang appear for defendant Bizlink Technology.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:23-cv-05436 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.