Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Avus et al. v. Chongqingxianghongxiewenjuyouxiangongsi | Patent Lawsuit 1:23-cv-02306

Avus Holdings, LLC et al. v. Chongqingxianghongxiewenjuyouxiangongsi

1:23-cv-02306 N.D. Ill. Closed US7513856B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 12 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and closed 7 Sep 2023, with US7513856B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: injunction granted.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US7513856B2
Application no.
US11/803582
Case no.
1:23-cv-02306
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
N.D. Ill.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Illinois
Chief judge
Mary M. Rowland
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
12 Apr 2023 – 7 Sep 2023
Duration
148 days
Basis of termination
Injunction Granted
Products & marks
Weight plate retention collar
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:23-cv-02306, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US7513856B2 Active App. US11/803582

Weight plate retention collar

A retention collar for securing weights to a barbell that includes two side plates with a pull bar and a cam lever. Two sets of pressure pins provide a frictional fit with the barbell when the collar is in its closed position, which is achieved by use of the am lever. The side plates are secured to each other by screws or rivets.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
7 Apr 2009
Est. expiry
27 Aug 2027
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Inventors
JONES, DYLAN
Classification
A63B21/072
Prosecution counsel
Law Offices of Sandy Lipkin
Examiner
DONNELLY, JEROME
US7513856B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7513856B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Accordingly, the Court enters this Order: 1. Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default Judgment; and 2. Enjoining and restraining Chongqingxianghongxiewenjuyouxiangongsi d/b/a Qinglou, its affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with Chongqingxianghongxiewenjuyouxiangongsi d/b/a Qinglou from: a. making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing, without limitation the Accused Product or any reproductions, copies or colorable imitations thereof; and b. further infringing the Patent-in-Suit. SO ORDERED.”

Case 1:23-cv-02306 · N.D. Ill. · closed 7 September 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:23-cv-02306?

1:23-cv-02306 is a patent infringement action brought by Avus Holdings, LLC against Chongqingxianghongxiewenjuyouxiangongsi, filed on 12 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case closed on 7 September 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-02306?

US7513856B2 (“Weight plate retention collar”), assigned to JONES, DYLAN, currently active. The record also lists Weight plate retention collar.

How was case 1:23-cv-02306 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is injunction granted. The termination text reads: “Accordingly, the Court enters this Order: 1. Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default Judgment; and 2. Enjoining and restraining Chongqingxianghongxiewenjuyouxiangongsi d/b/a Qinglou, its affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with Chongqingxianghongxiewenjuyouxiangongsi d/b/a Qinglou from: a. making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing, without limitation the Accused Product or any reproductions, copies or colorable imitations thereof; and b. further infringing the Patent-i

What does default judgment mean?

A default judgment is entered when a defendant does not appear or does not defend the action.

How long did case 1:23-cv-02306 take?

148 calendar days, from filing on 12 Apr 2023 to closure on 7 September 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-02306?

Chief Judge Mary M. Rowland presided. Benjamin T. Horton and Kelley Stebbins Gordon are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Avus.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:23-cv-02306 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-02306 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.