Eyenavision, Inc. v. Enchroma, Inc.
Infringement action filed 19 Feb 2021 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and closed 17 Mar 2023, with US10338286B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10338286B2
- Application no.
- US14/014991
- Case no.
- 2:21-cv-00246
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Pa.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Pennsylvania
- Chief judge
- Robert J. Colville
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 19 Feb 2021 – 17 Mar 2023
- Duration
- 756 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Multi-band color vision filters and method by LP-optimization
- 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
Multi-band color vision filters and method by LP-optimization
The invention generally relates to optical filters that provide regulation and/or enhancement of chromatic and luminous aspects of the color appearance of light to human vision, generally to applications of such optical filters, to therapeutic applications of such optical filters, to industrial and safety applications of such optical filters when incorporated, for example, in radiation-protective eyewear, to methods of designing such optical filters, to methods of manufacturing such optical filters, and to designs and methods of incorporating such optical filters into apparatus including, for example, eyewear and illuminants.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 2 Jul 2019
- Earliest priority
- 3 Mar 2011
- Est. expiry
- 6 Oct 2032
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SCHMEDER, ANDREW W. · MCPHERSON, DONALD M.
- Classification
- G02B5/20G01J3/46G02C7/12G02B5/22G01J3/51G02C7/10G02B5/28
- Prosecution counsel
- Schmidt Patent Law, Inc.
- Examiner
- PICHLER, MARIN
Parties of record
Eyenavision, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Bryan C. Devine · Jonathan R. Bruno · Stephen J. Del Sole
- Firm
- Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC
Enchroma, Inc.
- Core tech
- G02B5/20G01J3/46G02C7/12G02B5/22
- Counsel
- Anthony W. Brooks · Charles Brandon Rash · George A. Rosbrook · John W. McIlvaine III · Michael P. Kahn
- Firm
- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, The Webb Law Firm PC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Bryan C. Devine | Eyenavision, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jonathan R. Bruno | Eyenavision, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Stephen J. Del Sole | Eyenavision, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Anthony W. Brooks | Enchroma, Inc. | Defendant |
| Charles Brandon Rash | Enchroma, Inc. | Defendant |
| George A. Rosbrook | Enchroma, Inc. | Defendant |
| John W. McIlvaine III | Enchroma, Inc. | Defendant |
| Michael P. Kahn | Enchroma, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, subject to the Court’s approval, that all claims and counterclaims in the above-captioned action are dismissed with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, and that this Court will retain jurisdiction over the enforcement of the parties’ settlement agreement.”
Case 2:21-cv-00246 · W.D. Pa. · closed 17 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 2:21-cv-00246?
2:21-cv-00246 is a patent infringement action brought by Eyenavision, Inc. against Enchroma, Inc., filed on 19 Feb 2021 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The case closed on 17 March 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:21-cv-00246?
US10338286B2 (“Multi-band color vision filters and method by LP-optimization”), assigned to ENCHROMA, INC., currently active. The record also lists Multi-band color vision filters and method by LP-optimization.
How was case 2:21-cv-00246 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, subject to the Court’s approval, that all claims and counterclaims in the above-captioned action are dismissed with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, and that this Court will retain jurisdiction over the enforcement of the parties’ settlement agreement.”
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 2:21-cv-00246 take?
756 calendar days, from filing on 19 Feb 2021 to closure on 17 March 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:21-cv-00246?
Chief Judge Robert J. Colville presided. Bryan C. Devine, Jonathan R. Bruno and Stephen J. Del Sole are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Eyenavision. Anthony W. Brooks, Charles Brandon Rash, George A. Rosbrook, John W. McIlvaine III and Michael P. Kahn appear for defendant Enchroma.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:21-cv-00246 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.