Book a demo

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

Try now
Cross Innovations v. Juan Felipe Velez Wiesner et al. | Patent Lawsuit 1:23-cv-04614

Cross Innovations, LLC v. Juan Felipe Velez Wiesner et al.

1:23-cv-04614 S.D.N.Y. Closed US11642205B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 1 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and closed 29 Nov 2023, with US11642205B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case terminated.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US11642205B2
Application no.
US16/810148
Case no.
1:23-cv-04614
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
S.D.N.Y.
Court level
District Court
Case region
New York
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
1 Jun 2023 – 29 Nov 2023
Duration
181 days
Basis of termination
Case Terminated
Products & marks
External male incontinence clamp
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:23-cv-04614, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 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
US11642205B2 Active App. US16/810148

External male incontinence clamp

An incontinence clamp is provided. The incontinence clamp includes an upper clamp arm and a lower clamp arm. Each of the upper and lower clamp arms include a first end, a second end, an inner surface and an outer surface. The inner surfaces face each other. A hinge pivotally connects the first ends of the upper and lower clamp arms together. An upper guide is coupled to the inner surface of the upper clamp arm and a lower guide is coupled to the inner surface of the lower clamp arm. A connector releasably connects the second ends of the upper clamp arm and the lower clamp arm together.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
9 May 2023
Est. expiry
2 Feb 2037
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61F2/00
Examiner
CARREIRO, CAITLIN A
US11642205B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US11642205B2 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

AttorneyForRole
Daniel S. BretziusCross Innovations, LLCPlaintiff
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

“AO 120 FORMPATENT – CASE TERMINATED- SUBMITTED. In compliance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 290, the Director ofthe U.S. Patentand Trademark Officeis hereby advised thatafinal decisionwas rendered on 11/28/2023 in acourtaction filed on thefollowing patent(s) in the U.S. District Court SouthernDistrict ofNewYork. Director ofthe U.S. Patentand Trademark Officeelectronically notified via Notice ofElectronic Filing (NEF)..(tp) (Entered: 11/29/2023)”

Case 1:23-cv-04614 · S.D.N.Y. · closed 29 November 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 1:23-cv-04614?

1:23-cv-04614 is a patent infringement action brought by Cross Innovations, LLC against Juan Felipe Velez Wiesner, filed on 1 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case closed on 29 November 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-04614?

US11642205B2 (“External male incontinence clamp”), assigned to WIESNER HEALTHCARE INNOVATION LLC, currently active. The record also lists External male incontinence clamp.

How was case 1:23-cv-04614 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case terminated. The termination text reads: “AO 120 FORMPATENT – CASE TERMINATED- SUBMITTED. In compliance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 290, the Director ofthe U.S. Patentand Trademark Officeis hereby advised thatafinal decisionwas rendered on 11/28/2023 in acourtaction filed on thefollowing patent(s) in the U.S. District Court SouthernDistrict ofNewYork. Director ofthe U.S. Patentand Trademark Officeelectronically notified via Notice ofElectronic Filing (NEF)..(tp) (Entered: 11/29/2023)”

How long did case 1:23-cv-04614 take?

181 calendar days, from filing on 1 Jun 2023 to closure on 29 November 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-04614?

Chief Judge Jennifer H. Rearden presided. Daniel S. Bretzius is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Cross Innovations.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:23-cv-04614 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-04614 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.