Book a demo

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

Try now
Danco v. Kingston Brass | Patent Lawsuit 5:23-cv-01415

Danco, Inc. v. Kingston Brass, Inc.

5:23-cv-01415 C.D. Cal. Closed US9051720B1
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 19 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and closed 5 Oct 2023, with US9051720B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US9051720B1
Application no.
US12/416194
Case no.
5:23-cv-01415
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
C.D. Cal.
Court level
District Court
Case region
California
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
19 Jul 2023 – 5 Oct 2023
Duration
78 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed with Prejudice
Products & marks
Shower Scape Universal Tub · Shower Trim Kit
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 5:23-cv-01415, United States District Court for the Central District of California. 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
US9051720B1 Active App. US12/416194

Universal trim kit

A universal trim kit for tubs or showers and a variety of different OEM valves is disclosed that includes an escutcheon in the form of a decorative outer ring in combination with a plurality of interchangeable inserts and at least two fasteners, typically screws, for releasably attaching the escutcheon and one of the inserts to a valve body. The escutcheon further comprises a generally circular, centrally disposed aperture surrounded by an annular flange that functions as a seating surface for any of a plurality of interchangeable inserts, each insert being attachable to the outer ring and to a valve body disposed behind the ring, each insert also having a differently sized or shaped aperture configured for attachment to the body of a particular OEM valve.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
9 Jun 2015
Est. expiry
27 Jun 2032
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
F16L5/00E03C1/042
Prosecution counsel
Ross Barnes LLP
Examiner
MURPHY, KEVIN
US9051720B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9051720B1 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
J. Mark HollandDanco, Inc.Plaintiff
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

“Plaintiff Danco, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby give notice that all claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant Kingston Brass, Inc. in this action are dismissed, with prejudice and without costs, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and the parties’ Settlement Agreement effective September 14, 2023”

Case 5:23-cv-01415 · C.D. Cal. · closed 5 October 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 5:23-cv-01415?

5:23-cv-01415 is a patent infringement action brought by Danco, Inc. against Kingston Brass, Inc., filed on 19 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case closed on 5 October 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 5:23-cv-01415?

US9051720B1 (“Universal trim kit”), assigned to DANCO, INC., currently active. The record also lists Shower Scape Universal Tub and Shower Trim Kit.

How was case 5:23-cv-01415 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Danco, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby give notice that all claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant Kingston Brass, Inc. in this action are dismissed, with prejudice and without costs, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and the parties’ Settlement Agreement effective September 14, 2023”

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 5:23-cv-01415 take?

78 calendar days, from filing on 19 Jul 2023 to closure on 5 October 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 5:23-cv-01415?

J. Mark Holland is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Danco.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 5:23-cv-01415 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 5:23-cv-01415 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.