Infringement action filed 10 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and closed 1 Nov 2023, with US10625867B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
An integrable seat leg for an original equipment manufacturer seat, including a vertical member, including a front end and a rear end, a first side surface and a second side surface, a top surface and a bottom surface, one or more engaging members extending from the bottom surface, and one or more through-bores arranged proximate the top surface to secure the integrable seat leg to the seat, wherein the one or more engaging members are operatively arranged to engage one or more respective apertures in track.
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
"In consideration of a negotiated confidential settlement agreement, plaintiff Fenton Mobility Products, Inc. (“Fenton Mobility”) and defendant Pareto Aluminum Systems LLC (“Pareto”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby stipulate to the Dismissal with Prejudice of this action including all claims and counterclaims stated herein against all parties, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs."
Case 2:22-cv-12730 · E.D. Mich. · closed 1 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.
2:22-cv-12730 is a patent infringement action brought by Fenton Mobility Products, Inc. against Pareto Aluminum Systems, LLC, filed on 10 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The case closed on 1 November 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:22-cv-12730?
US10625867B2 (“Integrable seat leg”), assigned to FENTON MOBILITY PRODUCTS, INC., currently active. The record also lists Integrable seat leg.
How was case 2:22-cv-12730 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: "In consideration of a negotiated confidential settlement agreement, plaintiff Fenton Mobility Products, Inc. (“Fenton Mobility”) and defendant Pareto Aluminum Systems LLC (“Pareto”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby stipulate to the Dismissal with Prejudice of this action including all claims and counterclaims stated herein against all parties, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and 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 2:22-cv-12730 take?
356 calendar days, from filing on 10 Nov 2022 to closure on 1 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-12730?
Mark C. St. Amour, Michael J. Berchou, Michael Nicholas Vranjes and Thomas E. Bejin are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Fenton Mobility Products. Genavieve Kristen Lee and William A. McKenna appear for defendant Pareto Aluminum Systems.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:22-cv-12730 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-12730 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.
