Lfa Co., Ltd v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Infringement action filed 25 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and closed 26 Mar 2026, with USD1079991S asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- USD1079991S
- Application no.
- US29/759521
- Case no.
- 3:26-cv-00804
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- Lisa J. Cisneros
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 25 Jan 2026 – 26 Mar 2026
- Duration
- 60 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- HECASA Tail Lights Compatible with 2001-2011 Ford Ranger C-Type LED Tube Rear Brake Tail Lamps Assembly Driver and Passenger Side
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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
Automobile tail light
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 17 Jun 2025
- Est. expiry
- 17 Jun 2040
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LIN, CHI-CHUNG
- Prosecution counsel
- INHOUSE CO. Law Firm
- Examiner
- ULSH, GEORGE J
Parties of record
Lfa Co., Ltd
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Alexander Chen · Theodore Scott Lee
- Firm
- Inhouse Co. Law Firm
Amazon.com, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alexander Chen | Lfa Co., Ltd | Plaintiff |
| Theodore Scott Lee | Lfa Co., Ltd | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiff, LFA CO., LTD, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), hereby voluntarily dismisses the entire above-captioned case. Such dismissal shall be prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs and fees.”
Case 3:26-cv-00804 · N.D. Cal. · closed 26 March 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 3:26-cv-00804?
3:26-cv-00804 is a patent infringement action brought by Lfa Co., Ltd against Amazon.com, Inc., filed on 25 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case closed on 26 March 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 3:26-cv-00804?
USD1079991S (“Automobile tail light”), assigned to LFA CO., LTD., currently active. The record also lists HECASA Tail Lights Compatible with 2001-2011 Ford Ranger C-Type LED Tube Rear Brake Tail Lamps Assembly Driver and Passenger Side.
How was case 3:26-cv-00804 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff, LFA CO., LTD, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), hereby voluntarily dismisses the entire above-captioned case. Such dismissal shall be prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs and fees.”
What does voluntary dismissal mean?
A voluntary dismissal is one the plaintiff asks for rather than one the court imposes. Where both sides stipulate to it, it commonly signals a settlement that is not filed on the public docket.
How long did case 3:26-cv-00804 take?
60 calendar days, from filing on 25 Jan 2026 to closure on 26 March 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:26-cv-00804?
Chief Judge Lisa J. Cisneros presided. Alexander Chen and Theodore Scott Lee are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Lfa.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:26-cv-00804 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.