Barrday Corporation v. Lincoln Fabrics Inc.
Infringement action filed 14 Jun 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 16 Nov 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9127379B2US8573261B2
- Case no.
- 22-1903
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 14 Jun 2022 – 16 Nov 2023
- Duration
- 520 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- Securing yarns
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
Woven multi-layer fabrics and methods of fabricating same
A multi-layer ballistic woven fabric, including an upper woven layer having upper warp yarns and upper weft yarns that are interwoven together to form the upper woven layer. The multi-layer ballistic woven fabric also includes a lower woven layer having lower warp yarns and lower weft yarns that are interwoven together, and a plurality of securing yarns, each securing yarn interwoven with at least some of the upper yarns and some of the lower yarns so as to secure the upper and lower woven layers together. At least one of the securing yarns is woven underneath a first lower weft yarn, then above a second upper weft yarn adjacent the first lower weft yarn, then underneath a third lower weft yarn adjacent the second upper weft yarn and then above a fourth upper weft yarn adjacent the third lower weft yarn. The multi-layer ballistic woven fabric is formed by interweaving the securing yarns with the warp yarns and weft yarns as the upper woven layer and lower woven layer are made.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 8 Sep 2015
- Earliest priority
- 2 Oct 2009
- Est. expiry
- 4 Oct 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SHAHKARAMI, SHEKOUFEH
- Classification
- D03D13/00B32B5/02D03D1/00B32B5/08B32B27/02D03D11/00D03D15/00F41H5/04D03D25/00
- Prosecution counsel
- SMART & BIGGAR LP
- Examiner
- MUROMOTO, JR., BOBBY
Woven multi-layer fabrics and methods of fabricating same
A multi-layer ballistic woven fabric, including an upper woven layer having upper warp yarns and upper weft yarns that are interwoven together to form the upper woven layer. The multi-layer ballistic woven fabric also includes a lower woven layer having lower warp yarns and lower weft yarns that are interwoven together, and a plurality of securing yarns, each securing yarn interwoven with at least some of the upper yarns and some of the lower yarns so as to secure the upper and lower woven layers together. At least one of the securing yarns is woven underneath a first lower weft yarn, then above a second upper weft yarn adjacent the first lower weft yarn, then underneath a third lower weft yarn adjacent the second upper weft yarn and then above a fourth upper weft yarn adjacent the third lower weft yarn.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 5 Nov 2013
- Earliest priority
- 2 Oct 2009
- Est. expiry
- 4 Oct 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SHAHKARAMI, SHEKOUFEH
- Classification
- F41H1/02D03D23/00D03D15/00
- Prosecution counsel
- SMART & BIGGAR LP
- Examiner
- MUROMOTO, JR., BOBBY
Parties of record
Barrday Corporation
- Core tech
- D03D13/00B32B5/02D03D1/00B32B5/08
- Counsel
- Michael J. Berchou
- Firm
- Harter, Secrest & Emery LLP
Lincoln Fabrics Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Charles Rauch · Robert Fluskey II
- Firm
- Hodgson Russ LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Michael J. Berchou | Barrday Corporation | Plaintiff |
| Charles Rauch | Lincoln Fabrics Inc. | Defendant |
| Robert Fluskey II | Lincoln Fabrics Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
Case 22-1903 · Fed. Cir. · closed 16 November 2023
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 22-1903?
22-1903 is a patent infringement action brought by Barrday Corporation against Lincoln Fabrics Inc., filed on 14 Jun 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 16 November 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 22-1903?
US9127379B2 (“Woven multi-layer fabrics and methods of fabricating same”), assigned to BARRDAY INC., currently active; US8573261B2 (“Woven multi-layer fabrics and methods of fabricating same”), assigned to BARRDAY INC., currently active. The record also lists Securing yarns.
How was case 22-1903 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
How long did case 22-1903 take?
520 calendar days, from filing on 14 Jun 2022 to closure on 16 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1903?
Michael J. Berchou is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Barrday. Charles Rauch and Robert Fluskey II appear for defendant Lincoln Fabrics.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1903 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.