Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Cedar Lane Technologies v. HouLight | Patent Lawsuit 4:23-cv-01231

Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. HouLight

4:23-cv-01231 S.D. Tex. Closed 2 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 31 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and closed 10 Aug 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patents involved
US7218056B1US7391159B2
Case no.
4:23-cv-01231
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
S.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
31 Mar 2023 – 10 Aug 2023
Duration
132 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Lighting device with multiple power sources and multiple modes of operation
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 4:23-cv-01231, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US7218056B1 Inactive App. US11/374545

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.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
15 May 2007
Est. expiry
13 Mar 2026
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H05B37/00G08B23/00H02J7/00
Prosecution counsel
Brooks Kushman P.C.
Examiner
TRAN, THUY VINH
US7218056B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7218056B1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US7391159B2 Inactive App. US11/748066

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.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
24 Jun 2008
Est. expiry
13 Mar 2026
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H05B37/00
Prosecution counsel
Brooks Kushman P.C.
Examiner
TRAN, THUY VINH
US7391159B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7391159B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

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

“Order Granting Plaintiff Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice The Request to Dismiss this matter with Prejudice is hereby GRANTED.”

Case 4:23-cv-01231 · S.D. Tex. · closed 10 August 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.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 4:23-cv-01231?

4:23-cv-01231 is a patent infringement action brought by Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. against HouLight, filed on 31 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case closed on 10 August 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 4:23-cv-01231?

US7218056B1 (“Lighting device with multiple power sources and multiple modes of operation”), assigned to CEDAR LANE TECHNOLOGIES INC., currently inactive; 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 4:23-cv-01231 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Order Granting Plaintiff Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice The Request to Dismiss this matter with Prejudice is hereby GRANTED.”

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 4:23-cv-01231 take?

132 calendar days, from filing on 31 Mar 2023 to closure on 10 August 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:23-cv-01231?

Isaac Philip Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies. Karen Bryant Tripp appears for defendant HouLight.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 4:23-cv-01231 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:23-cv-01231 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.