Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. WAC Lighting
Infringement action filed 26 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and closed 5 Jun 2023, with US7391159B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7391159B2
- Application no.
- US11/748066
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-03476
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D.N.Y.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New York
- Chief judge
- Jennifer L. Rochon
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 26 Apr 2023 – 5 Jun 2023
- Duration
- 40 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- 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
- Isaac Rabicoff
- Firm
- Rabicoff Law LLC
WAC Lighting
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Rabicoff | Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE The request to dismiss this matter without prejudice is hereby GRANTED.”
Case 1:23-cv-03476 · S.D.N.Y. · closed 5 June 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 1:23-cv-03476?
1:23-cv-03476 is a patent infringement action brought by Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. against WAC Lighting, filed on 26 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case closed on 5 June 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-03476?
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 1:23-cv-03476 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE The request to dismiss this matter without prejudice is hereby GRANTED.”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 1:23-cv-03476 take?
40 calendar days, from filing on 26 Apr 2023 to closure on 5 June 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-03476?
Chief Judge Jennifer L. Rochon presided. Isaac Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-03476 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.