Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. AM Conservation Group, Inc.
Infringement action filed 2 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 10 Jul 2023, with US7391159B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case settled.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7391159B2
- Application no.
- US11/748066
- Case no.
- 2:23-cv-01842
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D.N.J.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New Jersey
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 2 Apr 2023 – 10 Jul 2023
- Duration
- 99 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Settled
- Products & marks
- Lighting device with multiple power sources and multiple modes of operation
- 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
Lighting device with multiple power sources and multiple modes of operation
Lighting device having a number of light sources for illumination an area around the lighting device. The lighting device including capabilities for generating illumination when a primary power source is unavailable. The light device may include a secondary power source for use in powering the lighting device when the primary power source is unavailable. The lighting device may include multiple operating modes, optionally depending on the active power source.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 24 Jun 2008
- Est. expiry
- 13 Mar 2026
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HARWOOD, RONALD PAUL
- Classification
- H05B37/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Brooks Kushman P.C.
- Examiner
- TRAN, THUY VINH
Parties of record
Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.
- Core tech
- H05B37/00
- Counsel
- David W. deBruin
- Firm
- Napoli Shkolnik LLC
AM Conservation Group, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Lindsay Faye Ditlow
- Firm
- McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| David W. deBruin | Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Lindsay Faye Ditlow | AM Conservation Group, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“It having been reported to the Court that the abovecaptioned action has been settled, IT IS on this 10th day of July, 2023, ORDERED that this action and any pending motions are hereby administratively terminated; and it is further ORDERED that this shall not constitute a dismissal Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41; and it is further ORDERED that within 60 days after entry of this Order (or such additional period authorized by the Court), the parties shall file all papers necessary to dismiss this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 or, if settlement cannot be consummated, request that the action be reopened; and it is further ORDERED that, absent receipt from the parties of dismissal papers or a request to reopen the action within the Case 2:23-cv-01842-JMV-CLW Document 13 Filed 07/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 91 2 60-day period, the Court shall dismiss this action, without further notice, with prejudice and without costs.”
Case 2:23-cv-01842 · D.N.J. · closed 10 July 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 2:23-cv-01842?
2:23-cv-01842 is a patent infringement action brought by Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. against AM Conservation Group, Inc., filed on 2 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 10 July 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-01842?
US7391159B2 (“Lighting device with multiple power sources and multiple modes of operation”), assigned to CEDAR LANE TECHNOLOGIES INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Lighting device with multiple power sources and multiple modes of operation.
How was case 2:23-cv-01842 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case settled. The termination text reads: “It having been reported to the Court that the abovecaptioned action has been settled, IT IS on this 10th day of July, 2023, ORDERED that this action and any pending motions are hereby administratively terminated; and it is further ORDERED that this shall not constitute a dismissal Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41; and it is further ORDERED that within 60 days after entry of this Order (or such additional period authorized by the Court), the parties shall file all papers necessary to dismiss this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 or, if settlement cannot be consumma
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 2:23-cv-01842 take?
99 calendar days, from filing on 2 Apr 2023 to closure on 10 July 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-01842?
David W. deBruin is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies. Lindsay Faye Ditlow appears for defendant AM Conservation Group.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-01842 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.