Inolex, Inc. et al. v. AE Chemie, Inc.
Infringement action filed 26 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and closed 22 Aug 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US11291204B2US10897899B2
- Case no.
- 2:23-cv-03154
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- C.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 26 Apr 2023 – 22 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 118 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Preservatives for cosmetic, toiletry and pharmaceutical compositions
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
Preservatives for cosmetic, toiletry and pharmaceutical compositions
A composition for and methods of preserving a topical cosmetic, toiletry or pharmaceutical formulation against microbiological contamination or growth are described in which the compositions used herein include at least one hydroxamic acid, salt or complex thereof, and the methods include addition of an effective amount of such compounds to a cosmetic, toiletry or pharmaceutical formulation. Compositions further including alkanediols and/or solubilizing agents in blends with hydroxamic acid are also described.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 5 Apr 2022
- Earliest priority
- 29 Nov 2007
- Est. expiry
- 26 Nov 2028
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- WINN, DANIEL
- Classification
- A01N37/28A61K8/34A61K8/40A61Q17/04A61Q19/00A61K47/16A01N31/02A61Q19/10
- Prosecution counsel
- Cozen O’Connor
- Examiner
- RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI
Preservatives for cosmetic, toiletry and pharmaceutical compositions
A composition for and methods of preserving a topical cosmetic, toiletry or pharmaceutical formulation against microbiological contamination or growth are described in which the compositions used herein include at least one hydroxamic acid, salt or complex thereof, and the methods include addition of an effective amount of such compounds to a cosmetic, toiletry or pharmaceutical formulation. Compositions further including alkanediols and/or solubilizing agents in blends with hydroxamic acid are also described.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 26 Jan 2021
- Earliest priority
- 29 Nov 2007
- Est. expiry
- 26 Nov 2028
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- WINN, DANIEL
- Classification
- A01N37/28A61K8/34A61K8/40A61Q17/04A61Q19/00A61K47/16A01N31/02A61Q19/10
- Prosecution counsel
- Cozen O’Connor
- Examiner
- RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI
Parties of record
Inolex, Inc.
- Core tech
- A01N37/28A61K8/34A61K8/40A61Q17/04
- Counsel
- Nathan Dooley · William Blake Coblentz
- Firm
- Cozen O’connor PC
- Also named
- Inolex Investment, Corp.
AE Chemie, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Louis C. Paul · Ronald A. Flate
- Firm
- Law Offices of Ronald A. Flate, Louis C. Paul & Associates, PLLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Nathan Dooley | Inolex, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| William Blake Coblentz | Inolex, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Louis C. Paul | AE Chemie, Inc. | Defendant |
| Ronald A. Flate | AE Chemie, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the above-entitled action is hereby dismissed with prejudice as to all parties. Each party shall bear its own fees and costs.”
Case 2:23-cv-03154 · C.D. Cal. · closed 22 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 2:23-cv-03154?
2:23-cv-03154 is a patent infringement action brought by Inolex, Inc. against AE Chemie, Inc., filed on 26 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case closed on 22 August 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:23-cv-03154?
US11291204B2 (“Preservatives for cosmetic, toiletry and pharmaceutical compositions”), assigned to INOLEX INVESTMENT CORPORATION, currently active; US10897899B2 (“Preservatives for cosmetic, toiletry and pharmaceutical compositions”), assigned to INOLEX INVESTMENT CORPORATION, currently active. The record also lists Preservatives for cosmetic, toiletry and pharmaceutical compositions.
How was case 2:23-cv-03154 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the above-entitled action is hereby dismissed with prejudice as to all parties. Each party shall bear its own 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 2:23-cv-03154 take?
118 calendar days, from filing on 26 Apr 2023 to closure on 22 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-03154?
Nathan Dooley and William Blake Coblentz are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Inolex. Louis C. Paul and Ronald A. Flate appear for defendant AE Chemie.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-03154 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.