Caravan Canopy International, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc.
Patentability filed 14 Apr 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 6 Dec 2023, with US5944040A asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US5944040A
- Application no.
- US09/082482
- Case no.
- 22-1642
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 14 Apr 2022 – 6 Dec 2023
- Duration
- 601 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- Collapsible tent frame
- Validity challenges
- 4 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
Collapsible tent frame
A collapsible tent frame is disclosed. The tent frame has a center pole used for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when pitching a tent. A plurality of side poles are coupled to each other through a plurality of scissor-type ribs, with upper ends of the ribs being hinged to connectors provided at top ends of the side poles and lower ends of the ribs being hinged to sliders movably fitted over the side poles. The center pole is coupled to the connectors of the side poles through a plurality of center pole ribs. The above center pole ribs individually consist of two rib members, which are coupled to each other through a hinge joint. Each of the center pole ribs is also hinged to the slider of an associated side pole through a support link, thus being collapsible at the hinge joint in accordance with a sliding motion of the slider along the side pole.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 31 Aug 1999
- Earliest priority
- 23 May 1997
- Est. expiry
- 21 May 2018
- Validity challenges
- 4 on recordIPR2021-00449 · Patentability · filed by Caravan Canopy International, Inc.IPR2020-01026 · Patentability · filed by Caravan Canopy International, Inc.IPR2020-01026 · filed by Walmart Inc.IPR2021-00449 · Other · filed by Z-Shade Co. Ltd.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- JANG, JUNG-WOO
- Classification
- E04H15/50E04H15/34E04H15/48
- Prosecution counsel
- GRIFFIN BUTLER WHISENHUNT & SZIPL LLP
- Examiner
- FRIEDMAN, CARL D.
Parties of record
Caravan Canopy International, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Stephen M. Lobbin
- Firm
- SML Avvocati PC
Walmart, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Stephen M. Lobbin | Caravan Canopy International, Inc. | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.”
Case 22-1642 · Fed. Cir. · closed 6 December 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 22-1642?
22-1642 is a patent patentability brought by Caravan Canopy International, Inc. against Walmart, Inc., filed on 14 Apr 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 6 December 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 22-1642?
US5944040A (“Collapsible tent frame”), assigned to SUH, DONG TACK, currently inactive. The record also lists Collapsible tent frame.
How was case 22-1642 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.”
How long did case 22-1642 take?
601 calendar days, from filing on 14 Apr 2022 to closure on 6 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1642?
Stephen M. Lobbin is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Caravan Canopy International.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1642 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.