Infringement action filed 26 Nov 2019 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and closed 21 Feb 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case settled.
A spa fixture lighting system assembly includes a wall-fitting nut having a threaded inner circumferential portion and an interior radial seat, and a light source disposed on a light source seat selected from the group consisting of the interior radial seat, an exterior radial sidewall of the wall-fitting nut, or an exterior circumferential sidewall of the wall-fitting nut.
A spa fixture lighting system assembly includes a wall-fitting nut having a threaded inner circumferential portion and an interior radial seat, and a light source disposed on a light source seat selected from the group consisting of the interior radial seat, an exterior radial sidewall of the wall-fitting nut, or an exterior circumferential sidewall of the wall-fitting nut.
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
"Plaintiff B & S Plastics, Inc. dba Waterway Plastics and Defendant Custom Molded Products, LLC, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby notify this Honorable Court that the parties have reached a settlement in principle of all matters related to the above-captioned action, and respectfully request that all pending deadlines be vacated at this time. The parties expect that a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice will be filed with the Court within thirty (30) days from the date of filing of this document, as the parties attend to finalizing the settlement documentation and certain conditions of settlement."
Case 2:19-cv-10092 · C.D. Cal. · closed 21 February 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.
2:19-cv-10092 is a patent infringement action brought by B & S Plastics, Inc. against Custom Molded Products, LLC, filed on 26 Nov 2019 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case closed on 21 February 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:19-cv-10092?
US10378707B2 (“Spa fixture lighting system”), assigned to B&S PLASTICS, INC., currently active; US10145523B2 (“Spa fixture lighting system”), assigned to B&S PLASTICS, INC., currently active. The record also lists Spa fixture lighting system.
How was case 2:19-cv-10092 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case settled. The termination text reads: "Plaintiff B & S Plastics, Inc. dba Waterway Plastics and Defendant Custom Molded Products, LLC, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby notify this Honorable Court that the parties have reached a settlement in principle of all matters related to the above-captioned action, and respectfully request that all pending deadlines be vacated at this time. The parties expect that a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice will be filed with the Court within thirty (30) days from the date of filing of this document, as the parties attend to finalizing the settlement documentation and certain c
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:19-cv-10092 take?
1183 calendar days, from filing on 26 Nov 2019 to closure on 21 February 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:19-cv-10092?
Chong Wook Pak, Daniel Miles Cislo and Mark D. Nielsen are recorded as counsel for plaintiff B & S Plastics. Matthew Robert Stephens and Steven M. Hanle appear for defendant Custom Molded Products.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:19-cv-10092 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:19-cv-10092 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.
