Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd. v. Globe Electric Company, Inc.
Infringement action filed 2 Jun 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 4 Oct 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US10862313B2US9590427B2US10429869B2US9465377B2
- Case no.
- 6:22-cv-00567
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 2 Jun 2022 – 4 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 489 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Globe branded Wi-Fi Smart Home and plug products · WiFi-enabled devices
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
Adaptable wireless power, light and automation system
A power control unit (100) and method of use thereof for varying the supply of electricity to an electrical apparatus using a wireless communications link between a controller (20) and the power control unit (100). The power control unit (100) is adapted to alternatively communicate with the controller (20) using a non-peer-to-peer communications standard or a peer-to-peer communications standard such as Wi-Fi Direct.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 8 Dec 2020
- Earliest priority
- 7 Nov 2011
- Est. expiry
- 22 Dec 2032
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DAVIS, BARRIE · DAVIS, BENJAMIN · DAVIS, MATTHEW
- Classification
- H02J4/00G05B15/02H04W52/04G06F1/26G05D23/19H05B47/19H05B47/16H05B47/10G08C17/02
- Prosecution counsel
- Southern Cross Intellectual Property
- Examiner
- GAMI, TEJAL
Adaptable wireless power, light and automation system
A power control unit and method of use thereof for varying the supply of electricity to an electrical apparatus using a wireless communications link between a controller and the power control unit. The power control unit is adapted to alternatively communicate with the controller using a non-peer-to-peer communications standard or a peer-to-peer communications standard such as Wi-Fi Direct.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 7 Mar 2017
- Earliest priority
- 7 Nov 2011
- Est. expiry
- 3 Jun 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DAVIS, BARRIE · DAVIS, BENJAMIN · DAVIS, MATTHEW
- Classification
- G06F19/00G05D23/19H05B37/02H02J4/00G06F1/26G08C17/02H04W52/04G05B15/02
- Prosecution counsel
- Southern Cross Intellectual Property
- Examiner
- BAHTA, KIDEST
Also asserted in this case
2 moreThe docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd.
- Core tech
- H02J4/00G05B15/02H04W52/04G06F1/26
- Counsel
- Erick Scott Robinson · Patrick M. Dunn
- Firm
- Spencer Fane LLP
Globe Electric Company, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Erick Scott Robinson | Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Patrick M. Dunn | Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd. | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiff, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), hereby files this notice of dismissal of this action without prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and expenses. Defendant has not served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.”
Case 6:22-cv-00567 · W.D. Tex. · closed 4 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 6:22-cv-00567?
6:22-cv-00567 is a patent infringement action brought by Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd. against Globe Electric Company, Inc., filed on 2 Jun 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 4 October 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 6:22-cv-00567?
US10862313B2 (“Adaptable wireless power, light and automation system”), assigned to KORTEK INDUSTRIES PTY LTD, currently active; US9590427B2 (“Adaptable wireless power, light and automation system”), assigned to KORTEK INDUSTRIES PTY LTD., currently active; US10429869B2 (“Wireless power, light and automation control”), assigned to KORTEK INDUSTRIES PTY LTD; US9465377B2 (“Wireless power, light and automation control”), assigned to KORTEK INDUSTRIES PTY LTD.. The record also lists Globe branded Wi-Fi Smart Home and plug products and WiFi-enabled devices.
How was case 6:22-cv-00567 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), hereby files this notice of dismissal of this action without prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and expenses. Defendant has not served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 6:22-cv-00567 take?
489 calendar days, from filing on 2 Jun 2022 to closure on 4 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-00567?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Erick Scott Robinson and Patrick M. Dunn are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Kortek Industries Pty..
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-00567 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.