The Litebook Company, Ltd. v. Bombardier Aerospace, Corp. et al.
Infringement action filed 18 Jul 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and closed 27 Jun 2023, with US7678140B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7678140B2
- Application no.
- US09/853428
- Case no.
- 4:22-cv-00615
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Mark Pittman
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 18 Jul 2022 – 27 Jun 2023
- Duration
- 344 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Photoreceptor system for melatonin regulation and phototherapy
- Validity challenges
- 2 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
Photoreceptor system for melatonin regulation and phototherapy
The present invention involves a light system for stimulating or regulating neuroendocrine, circadian, and photoneural systems in mammals based upon the discovery of peak sensitivity ranging from 425-505 nm; a light meter system for quantifying light which stimulates or regulates mammalian circadian, photoneural, and neuroendocrine systems. The present invention also relates to translucent and transparent materials, and lamps or other light sources with or without filters capable of stimulating or regulating neuroendocrine, circadian, and photoneural systems in mammals. Additionally, the present invention involves treatment of mammals with a wide variety of disorders or deficits, including light responsive disorders, eating disorders, menstrual cycle disorders, non-specific alerting and performance deficits, hormone-sensitive cancers, and cardiovascular disorders.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 16 Mar 2010
- Earliest priority
- 10 May 2000
- Est. expiry
- 5 Aug 2026
- Validity challenges
- 2 on recordIPR2023-00940 · Patentability · filed by BEAR DOWN BRANDS, LLC DBA VERILUX, INCIPR2023-00192 · Patentability · filed by Bombardier, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BRAINARD, GEORGE · GLICKMAN, GENA
- Classification
- A61N5/06
- Prosecution counsel
- ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
- Examiner
- GIBSON, ROY D
Parties of record
The Litebook Company, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Cabrach John Connor · David A. Skeels · John Michael Shumaker
- Firm
- Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC, Whitaker Chalk Swindle & Schwartz PLLC
Bombardier Aerospace, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Charlotte Geaghan-Breiner · Jason H. Liss · Jonathan P. Knight · Louis W. Tompros · Max Ciccarelli · Monica Grewal · Xiaowei Sun
- Firm
- Ciccarelli Law Firm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
- Also named
- NetJets Aviation, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Cabrach John Connor | The Litebook Company, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| David A. Skeels | The Litebook Company, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| John Michael Shumaker | The Litebook Company, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Charlotte Geaghan-Breiner | Bombardier Aerospace, Corp. | Defendant |
| Jason H. Liss | Bombardier Aerospace, Corp. | Defendant |
| Jonathan P. Knight | Bombardier Aerospace, Corp. | Defendant |
| Louis W. Tompros | Bombardier Aerospace, Corp. | Defendant |
| Max Ciccarelli | Bombardier Aerospace, Corp. | Defendant |
| Monica Grewal | Bombardier Aerospace, Corp. | Defendant |
| Xiaowei Sun | Bombardier Aerospace, Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Parties Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (ECF No. 53). Having considered the Motion, case filings, and docket entries, the Court finds that the Motion should be, and it is hereby, GRANTED. The Court thus ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
Case 4:22-cv-00615 · N.D. Tex. · closed 27 June 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 4:22-cv-00615?
4:22-cv-00615 is a patent infringement action brought by The Litebook Company, Ltd. against Bombardier Aerospace, Corp., filed on 18 Jul 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case closed on 27 June 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 4:22-cv-00615?
US7678140B2 (“Photoreceptor system for melatonin regulation and phototherapy”), assigned to THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY, currently inactive. The record also lists Photoreceptor system for melatonin regulation and phototherapy.
How was case 4:22-cv-00615 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Parties Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (ECF No. 53). Having considered the Motion, case filings, and docket entries, the Court finds that the Motion should be, and it is hereby, GRANTED. The Court thus ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
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 4:22-cv-00615 take?
344 calendar days, from filing on 18 Jul 2022 to closure on 27 June 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:22-cv-00615?
Chief Judge Mark Pittman presided. Cabrach John Connor, David A. Skeels and John Michael Shumaker are recorded as counsel for plaintiff The Litebook. Charlotte Geaghan-Breiner, Jason H. Liss, Jonathan P. Knight, Louis W. Tompros, Max Ciccarelli, Monica Grewal and Xiaowei Sun appear for defendant Bombardier Aerospace.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:22-cv-00615 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.