King & Spalding, LLP v. Cozy, Inc.
Infringement action filed 27 Oct 2025 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 21 Apr 2026, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US7156416B2US8136835B2US9669739B1US9902298B1
- Case no.
- 26-1098
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 27 Oct 2025 – 21 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 176 days
- Basis of termination
- Appeal Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Dorel Juvenile’s Air Protect® technology
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
Easy ejector seat with skeletal crash safety beam
An arrangement in passenger vehicles, that diverts the impact energy in lateral or side impacts away from the passengers to the remaining mass of the vehicle thereby protecting the passengers, and in the same arrangement provides utilitarian access to the vehicle, such utilitarian access making it possible to both install multi-element contoured surround seats for passengers and the driver, and also a safety device for head-on collision protection that obviates the need for conventional seat belts and front impact airbags. An indo-skeletal structural arrangement proposed for the vehicle, provides further benefits by targeting the strength of the vehicle to protect passengers while minimizing other massive elements in the vehicle.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 2 Jan 2007
- Est. expiry
- 5 Sep 2020
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- RAJASINGHAM, ARJUNA INDRAESWARAN
- Classification
- B60R21/16A61G3/02A61G3/08A61G5/04B60N2/06B60N2/24B60N2/42B60N2/427B60R19/20B60R21/00B60R21/02B60R21/233B62D21/15
- Examiner
- FLEMING, FAYE M.
Easy ejector seat with skeletal crash safety beam
An arrangement in passenger vehicles, that diverts the impact energy in impacts away from the passengers to the remaining mass of the vehicle thereby protecting the passengers, and in the same arrangement provides utilitarian access to the vehicle, such utilitarian access making it possible to both install multi-element contoured surround seats for passengers and the driver, and also safety devices and arrangements for head-on collision protection that protect the passenger. An indo-skeletal structural arrangement proposed for the vehicle, provides further benefits by targeting the strength of the vehicle to protect passengers while minimizing other massive elements in the vehicle.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 20 Mar 2012
- Est. expiry
- 21 Jul 2025
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- RAJASINGHAM, ARJUNA INDRAESWARAN
- Classification
- B60R21/26
- Examiner
- FLEMING, FAYE M.
Also asserted in this case
2 moreThe docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
King & Spalding, LLP
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- J. Michael Jakes · Jason Lee Romrell
- Firm
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Cozy, Inc.
- Core tech
- B60R21/16A61G3/02A61G3/08A61G5/04
- Counsel
- Blair M. Jacobs
- Firm
- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| J. Michael Jakes | King & Spalding, LLP | Plaintiff |
| Jason Lee Romrell | King & Spalding, LLP | Plaintiff |
| Blair M. Jacobs | Cozy, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) Appeal No. 2026-1098 is dismissed. The revised official caption for the remaining appeals, Appeal Nos. 2026- 1007 et al., is reflected in this order. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs as to Appeal No. 2026-1098. (3) The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this order to the merits panel assigned to Appeal Nos. 2026-1007COZY, INC. v. DOREL JUVENILE GROUP, INC. et al.”
Case 26-1098 · Fed. Cir. · closed 21 April 2026
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 26-1098?
26-1098 is a patent infringement action brought by King & Spalding, LLP against Cozy, Inc., filed on 27 Oct 2025 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 21 April 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 26-1098?
US7156416B2 (“Easy ejector seat with skeletal crash safety beam”), assigned to COZY INC., currently inactive; US8136835B2 (“Easy ejector seat with skeletal crash safety beam”), assigned to COZY INC., currently inactive; US9669739B1 (“Vehicle occupant support”), assigned to COZY INC.; US9902298B1 (“Vehicle occupant support”), assigned to COZY INC.. The record also lists Dorel Juvenile’s Air Protect® technology.
How was case 26-1098 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: “IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) Appeal No. 2026-1098 is dismissed. The revised official caption for the remaining appeals, Appeal Nos. 2026- 1007 et al., is reflected in this order. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs as to Appeal No. 2026-1098. (3) The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this order to the merits panel assigned to Appeal Nos. 2026-1007COZY, INC. v. DOREL JUVENILE GROUP, INC. et al.”
How long did case 26-1098 take?
176 calendar days, from filing on 27 Oct 2025 to closure on 21 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 26-1098?
J. Michael Jakes and Jason Lee Romrell are recorded as counsel for plaintiff King & Spalding. Blair M. Jacobs appears for defendant Cozy.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 26-1098 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.