Book a demo

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

Try now
Hanchett Entry Systems v. Camden Marketing | Patent Lawsuit 2:23-cv-00069

Hanchett Entry Systems, Inc. v. Camden Marketing Incorporated

2:23-cv-00069 D. Ariz. Closed 3 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 11 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and closed 1 May 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
2:23-cv-00069
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Ariz.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Arizona
Chief judge
Diane J Humetewa
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
11 Jan 2023 – 1 May 2023
Duration
110 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Adjustable strike keeper face and method of adjusting · Electric strike · Integrated adjustable keeper shim for an electric strike
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:23-cv-00069, United States District Court for the District of Arizona. 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
US10563427B2 Active App. US15/098565

Integrated adjustable keeper shim for an electric strike

An integrated adjustable keeper shim for an electric strike is provided. The keeper shim may be included in a keeper assembly of the electric strike, wherein the electric strike includes a housing defining an entry chamber that operates in conjunction with a latch of a lockset. The engaged position of the latch secures a door within the entry chamber when the door is in a closed state. The keeper assembly comprises a keeper rotatably mounted to the housing, and is movable between a locked position and an unlocked position. The keeper retains the latch in the entry chamber when the keeper is in the locked position and the latch is in the engaged position. The keeper shim is adjustably mounted to the keeper, wherein a position of the keeper shim relative to the keeper is selected to minimize a gap defined between the keeper shim and the latch.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
18 Feb 2020
Earliest priority
14 Apr 2015
Est. expiry
21 Apr 2038
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
E05B47/00E05B15/02
Prosecution counsel
Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP
Examiner
LUGO, CARLOS
US10563427B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10563427B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US10794088B2 Active App. US15/641964

Adjustable strike keeper face and method of adjusting

An actuator-controlled electric strike operates in conjunction with a latch having an engaged position to secure a door in a closed state and a released position. The strike comprises a housing defining an entry chamber. A keeper is disposed in the entry chamber about an axis for rotation between a locked position and an unlocked position. A unitized actuator module is provided including a body, a keeper release and an actuator movable between first and second positions. When the actuator is in one of the first or second positions the keeper release is coupled to the keeper and the keeper is secured in the locked position. When the actuator is selectively moved to the other of the first or second positions the keeper release is decoupled from the keeper and the keeper is rotatable to the unlocked position.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
6 Oct 2020
Earliest priority
14 Apr 2015
Est. expiry
24 Sep 2037
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
E05B47/00E05B15/02
Prosecution counsel
Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP
Examiner
WILLIAMS, MARK A
US10794088B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10794088B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

1 more

The docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.

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

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

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff, Hanchett Entry Systems, Inc., by and through undersigned counsel, hereby gives notice that the parties have reached a settlement, and the above-captioned civil action is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorney fees and costs. This Court shall retain both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the Parties for the purpose of enforcing the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement between the Parties that resolved this matter.”

Case 2:23-cv-00069 · D. Ariz. · closed 1 May 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 2:23-cv-00069?

2:23-cv-00069 is a patent infringement action brought by Hanchett Entry Systems, Inc. against Camden Marketing Incorporated, filed on 11 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The case closed on 1 May 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 2:23-cv-00069?

US10563427B2 (“Integrated adjustable keeper shim for an electric strike”), assigned to HANCHETT ENTRY SYSTEMS, INC., currently active; US10794088B2 (“Adjustable strike keeper face and method of adjusting”), assigned to HANCHETT ENTRY SYSTEMS, INC., currently active; USD794416S (“Electric strike”), assigned to HANCHETT ENTRY SYSTEMS, INC.. The record also lists Adjustable strike keeper face and method of adjusting, Electric strike and Integrated adjustable keeper shim for an electric strike.

How was case 2:23-cv-00069 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff, Hanchett Entry Systems, Inc., by and through undersigned counsel, hereby gives notice that the parties have reached a settlement, and the above-captioned civil action is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorney fees and costs. This Court shall retain both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the Parties for the purpose of enforcing the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement between the Parties that resolved this matter.”

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 2:23-cv-00069 take?

110 calendar days, from filing on 11 Jan 2023 to closure on 1 May 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-00069?

Chief Judge Diane J Humetewa presided. Dennis Brian Danella is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Hanchett Entry Systems.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:23-cv-00069 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-00069 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.