David J. Catanzaro v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.
Infringement action filed 3 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and closed 17 Apr 2023, with US7653959B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7653959B1
- Application no.
- US09/505791
- Case no.
- 3:22-cv-01751
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- M.D. Pa.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Pennsylvania
- Chief judge
- Malachy E Mannion
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 3 Nov 2022 – 17 Apr 2023
- Duration
- 165 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Article assembly
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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
Article assembly
An assembly comprising a toothbrush having a first and second end. A stand in the shape of a pair of feet retains the brush in a vertical position when the stand is placed on a horizontal surface. For additional support, a base may be incorporated with the stand.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 2 Feb 2010
- Est. expiry
- 30 Dec 2016
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- CATANZARO, DAVID
- Classification
- A46B9/04A46B5/02A46B17/04
- Examiner
- GRAHAM, GARY K.
Parties of record
David J. Catanzaro
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- David J. Catanzaro
- Firm
- Not recorded
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
- Also named
- Little Tikes · Does 1 Through 50
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| David J. Catanzaro | David J. Catanzaro | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiff David j. Catanzaro hereby dismisses its complaintwith prejudice , Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal rules of civil procedure , defendant not having answered or otherwise appeared.”
Case 3:22-cv-01751 · M.D. Pa. · closed 17 April 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 3:22-cv-01751?
3:22-cv-01751 is a patent infringement action brought by David J. Catanzaro against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed on 3 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The case closed on 17 April 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 3:22-cv-01751?
US7653959B1 (“Article assembly”), assigned to CATANZARO, DAVID, currently inactive. The record also lists Article assembly.
How was case 3:22-cv-01751 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff David j. Catanzaro hereby dismisses its complaintwith prejudice , Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal rules of civil procedure , defendant not having answered or otherwise appeared.”
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 3:22-cv-01751 take?
165 calendar days, from filing on 3 Nov 2022 to closure on 17 April 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:22-cv-01751?
Chief Judge Malachy E Mannion presided. David J. Catanzaro is recorded as counsel for plaintiff David J. Catanzaro.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:22-cv-01751 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.