Columbia Insurance Company et al. v. Jon Wright et al.
Patentability filed 16 Jul 2021 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 31 Mar 2023, with US10316510B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10316510B2
- Application no.
- US16/225517
- Case no.
- 21-2145
- 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
- 16 Jul 2021 – 31 Mar 2023
- Duration
- 623 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- Hanger for fire separation wall
- Validity challenges
- 2 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
Hanger for fire separation wall
A hanger for connecting a structural component to a wall that can have sheathing mounted thereon either before or after the hanger is connected to the wall. The hanger includes a channel-shaped portion configured to receive the structural component. An extension portion extends from the channel-shaped portion and is configured to extend through the sheathing to engage the wall at a first location. A connection portion is configured for attachment to the wall at a second location spaced from the first location.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 11 Jun 2019
- Earliest priority
- 31 Dec 2013
- Est. expiry
- 26 Nov 2034
- Validity challenges
- 2 on recordPGR2019-00063 · Other · filed by Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc.PGR2019-00063 · Patentability · filed by Columbia Insurance Co.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BREKKE, STEVEN · ROLF, MARK R.
- Classification
- E04B1/26
- Prosecution counsel
- STINSON LLP
- Examiner
- FERENCE, JAMES M
Parties of record
Columbia Insurance Company
- Core tech
- E04B1/26
- Counsel
- Columbia Insurance Company
- Firm
- Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc.
- Also named
- Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc.
Jon Wright
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
- Also named
- Michelle Holoubek · Richard Crudo · Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Columbia Insurance Company | Columbia Insurance Company | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
Case 21-2145 · Fed. Cir. · closed 31 March 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 21-2145?
21-2145 is a patent patentability brought by Columbia Insurance Company against Jon Wright, filed on 16 Jul 2021 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 31 March 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 21-2145?
US10316510B2 (“Hanger for fire separation wall”), assigned to COLUMBIA INSURANCE COMPANY, currently inactive. The record also lists Hanger for fire separation wall.
How was case 21-2145 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
How long did case 21-2145 take?
623 calendar days, from filing on 16 Jul 2021 to closure on 31 March 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 21-2145?
Columbia Insurance Company is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Columbia Insurance.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 21-2145 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.