Dlhbowles v. Jiangsu Riying Electronics Co., Ltd.
Infringement action filed 21 Jan 2021 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and closed 18 Aug 2023, with US8662421B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case settled.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8662421B2
- Application no.
- US11/101001
- Case no.
- 5:21-cv-00170
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Ohio
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Ohio
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 21 Jan 2021 – 18 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 939 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Settled
- Products & marks
- A ball mount spray nozzle device
- 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
Adjustable fluidic sprayer
An improved fluidic spray device that includes: (a) a base having boundary surfaces including top, bottom and side edge surfaces, (b) a plurality of projections extending from a base boundary surface chosen from the group consisting of its top and bottom surfaces, wherein these projections are configured and spaced so as to provide the interior geometry of the flow passages for a fluidic circuit having a power nozzle and an interaction region located downstream of the power nozzle, and (c) wherein the flow passages that are proximate the base edges having no sidewalls to form edge boundaries for these flow passages.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 4 Mar 2014
- Est. expiry
- 7 Apr 2025
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- RUSSELL, GREGORY · STEERMAN, DAN
- Classification
- B05B1/08
- Prosecution counsel
- J. ANDREW MCKINNEY & ASSOC., LLC
- Examiner
- BOECKMANN, JASON
Parties of record
Dlhbowles
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Andrew D. Gordon-Seifert · David B. Cupar · Lidia C. Mowad · Mark J. Masterson · Matthew J. Cavanagh
- Firm
- Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP (Cleveland), McDonald Hopkins LLC (Cleveland)
Jiangsu Riying Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Ava M. Abner · David A. Kunselman · Deborah J. Michelson · Rachael L. Rodman
- Firm
- Buckley King LPA (Cleveland), Frost, Brown & Todd LLC (Cincinnati), Ulmer & Berne LLP (Columbus)
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew D. Gordon-Seifert | Dlhbowles | Plaintiff |
| David B. Cupar | Dlhbowles | Plaintiff |
| Lidia C. Mowad | Dlhbowles | Plaintiff |
| Mark J. Masterson | Dlhbowles | Plaintiff |
| Matthew J. Cavanagh | Dlhbowles | Plaintiff |
| Ava M. Abner | Jiangsu Riying Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| David A. Kunselman | Jiangsu Riying Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Deborah J. Michelson | Jiangsu Riying Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Rachael L. Rodman | Jiangsu Riying Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“This matter has been settled and, pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties enter into and submit this Stipulation dismissing with prejudice all claims and counterclaims that they asserted and could have asserted in this action, each party to pay its own attorney costs, litigation expenses and court costs.”
Case 5:21-cv-00170 · N.D. Ohio · closed 18 August 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 5:21-cv-00170?
5:21-cv-00170 is a patent infringement action brought by Dlhbowles against Jiangsu Riying Electronics Co., Ltd., filed on 21 Jan 2021 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The case closed on 18 August 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 5:21-cv-00170?
US8662421B2 (“Adjustable fluidic sprayer”), assigned to ABC TECHNOLOGIES INC., currently inactive. The record also lists A ball mount spray nozzle device.
How was case 5:21-cv-00170 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case settled. The termination text reads: “This matter has been settled and, pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties enter into and submit this Stipulation dismissing with prejudice all claims and counterclaims that they asserted and could have asserted in this action, each party to pay its own attorney costs, litigation expenses and court costs.”
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 5:21-cv-00170 take?
939 calendar days, from filing on 21 Jan 2021 to closure on 18 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 5:21-cv-00170?
Andrew D. Gordon-Seifert, David B. Cupar, Lidia C. Mowad, Mark J. Masterson and Matthew J. Cavanagh are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Dlhbowles. Ava M. Abner, David A. Kunselman, Deborah J. Michelson and Rachael L. Rodman appear for defendant Jiangsu Riying Electronics.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 5:21-cv-00170 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.