Intex Recreation, Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corporation
Patentability filed 13 Nov 2019 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 23 Oct 2023, with US7246394B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7246394B2
- Application no.
- US11/326829
- Case no.
- 20-1143
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 13 Nov 2019 – 23 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 1440 days
- Basis of termination
- Appeal Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Inflatable product with built-in housing and switching pipe
- Validity challenges
- 5 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
Inflatable product with built-in housing and switching pipe
An inflatable product includes an inflatable body, a fan and motor assembly for pumping air, a housing built into the inflatable body, and an air conduit disposed at least in part in the housing. The housing has an interior region. The air conduit is movable between a first position and a second position, the fan and motor inflating the inflatable body when the air conduit is in the first position, and deflating the inflatable body when the air conduit is in the second position. Air flows between the interior region of the housing and the inflatable body during inflation and deflation.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 24 Jul 2007
- Est. expiry
- 22 Jun 2021
- Validity challenges
- 5 on recordIPR2018-00871 · Other · filed by Intex Recreation Corp.IPR2018-00874 · Other · filed by Intex Recreation Corp. et al.IPR2018-00872 · Other · filed by Intex Recreation Corp.IPR2018-00873 · filed by Intex Recreation Corp.IPR2018-00870 · Other · filed by Intex Recreation Corp.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- WANG, CHENG CHUNG
- Classification
- A47C27/08
- Prosecution counsel
- QUINTERO LAW OFFICE, PC
- Examiner
- ENGLE, PATRICIA
Parties of record
Intex Recreation, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- R. Trevor Carter Esq.
- Firm
- Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Team Worldwide Corporation
- Core tech
- A47C27/08
- Counsel
- Timothy E. Bianchi
- Firm
- Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, PA
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| R. Trevor Carter Esq. | Intex Recreation, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Timothy E. Bianchi | Team Worldwide Corporation | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
Case 20-1143 · Fed. Cir. · closed 23 October 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 20-1143?
20-1143 is a patent patentability brought by Intex Recreation, Corp. against Team Worldwide Corporation, filed on 13 Nov 2019 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 23 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 20-1143?
US7246394B2 (“Inflatable product with built-in housing and switching pipe”), assigned to TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, currently inactive. The record also lists Inflatable product with built-in housing and switching pipe.
How was case 20-1143 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
How long did case 20-1143 take?
1440 calendar days, from filing on 13 Nov 2019 to closure on 23 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 20-1143?
R. Trevor Carter Esq. is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Intex Recreation. Timothy E. Bianchi appears for defendant Team Worldwide.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 20-1143 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.