Halsted Corporation v. Global Strategies, Inc.
Infringement action filed 1 May 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 4 May 2026, with US7510327B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case terminated.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7510327B2
- Application no.
- US11/079060
- Case no.
- 2:25-cv-03718
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D.N.J.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New Jersey
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 1 May 2025 – 4 May 2026
- Duration
- 368 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Terminated
- Products & marks
- DURASACK Heavy Duty Contractor Bag
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record
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
High strength ribbon-woven disposable bag for containing refuse
An ultra-strong tear resistant, cut resistant, puncture resistant bag having a high shear strength or modulus is provided by weaving ribbons of flat polypropylene sheet into a bag. The bag is formed by weaving a cylindrically shaped object, cutting the object transversely and sealing up one end to form the bag. The physical properties of the ribbon-woven bag easily accommodate holding refuse including bricks, wood with nails, glass and other refuse in a lightweight disposable bag. In an alternative embodiment, the ribbon-woven bag is overlain with sheets laminated to the exterior of the bag to provide a fluid-tight container.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 31 Mar 2009
- Est. expiry
- 7 Oct 2026
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2018-01197 · filed by Interbulk USA, LLC d/b/a Interbulk Express
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- WILLIAMS, BRUCE A. · DRUMMOND, BRUNO GONCALVES
- Classification
- B65D30/04B65D30/08B65D30/14B32B1/00
- Prosecution counsel
- HAYES SOLOWAY P.C.
- Examiner
- PASCUA, JES F
Parties of record
Halsted Corporation
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Kristen Healey Cramer · Paul J. Kremer
- Firm
- Benesch, Friedlanders, Coplan & Aronoff LLP
Global Strategies, Inc.
- Core tech
- B65D30/04B65D30/08B65D30/14B32B1/00
- Counsel
- Corey Schade
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Kristen Healey Cramer | Halsted Corporation | Plaintiff |
| Paul J. Kremer | Halsted Corporation | Plaintiff |
| Corey Schade | Global Strategies, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“It having been reported to the Court that the above−captioned action has been settled, IT IS on this 4th day of May, 2026, ORDERED that this action and any pending motions are hereby administratively terminated; and it is further ORDERED that this shall not constitute a dismissal Order under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and it is further ORDERED that within 60 days after entry of this Order (or such additional period authorized by the Court), the parties shall file all papers necessary to dismiss this action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, if settlement cannot be consummated, request that the action be reopened; and it is further ORDERED that, absent receipt from the parties of dismissal papers or a request to reopen the action within the 60−day period, the Court shall dismiss this action, without further notice, with prejudice and without costs.”
Case 2:25-cv-03718 · D.N.J. · closed 4 May 2026
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 2:25-cv-03718?
2:25-cv-03718 is a patent infringement action brought by Halsted Corporation against Global Strategies, Inc., filed on 1 May 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 4 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:25-cv-03718?
US7510327B2 (“High strength ribbon-woven disposable bag for containing refuse”), assigned to GLOBAL STRATEGIES HOLDING CORP., currently active. The record also lists DURASACK Heavy Duty Contractor Bag.
How was case 2:25-cv-03718 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case terminated. The termination text reads: “It having been reported to the Court that the above−captioned action has been settled, IT IS on this 4th day of May, 2026, ORDERED that this action and any pending motions are hereby administratively terminated; and it is further ORDERED that this shall not constitute a dismissal Order under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and it is further ORDERED that within 60 days after entry of this Order (or such additional period authorized by the Court), the parties shall file all papers necessary to dismiss this action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, if settlement cannot be c
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 2:25-cv-03718 take?
368 calendar days, from filing on 1 May 2025 to closure on 4 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-03718?
Kristen Healey Cramer and Paul J. Kremer are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Halsted. Corey Schade appears for defendant Global Strategies.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-03718 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.