Monahan Products, LLC v. Dorel Juvenile Group INC
Infringement action filed 20 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and closed 12 Jul 2023, with US9315124B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9315124B2
- Application no.
- US14/223835
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-10602
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Mass.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Massachusetts
- Chief judge
- George A. OToole Jr.
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 20 Mar 2023 – 12 Jul 2023
- Duration
- 114 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Child restraint having indicator device
- 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
Child restraint having indicator device
In one aspect, a child restraint includes: a safety seat having a base body positioned on a vehicle seat by a securing device; a foot coupled to a bottom of the base body; a first resilient member disposed between the base body and the foot to maintain a compressible distance between the foot and the base body; and an indicator device disposed on the base body and located above the foot. In one embodiment, a linkage assembly is movably mounted on the base body. When the safety seat is not secured by the securing device, the indicator device is not in contact with the foot, and the indicator device displays a first signal. When the safety seat is secured by the securing device, the base body is compressed toward the foot to trigger the indicator device, such that the indicator device displays a second signal.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 19 Apr 2016
- Earliest priority
- 3 Apr 2013
- Est. expiry
- 24 Mar 2034
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LEHMAN, DAVID ANDREW · ANDERSON, SCOTT
- Classification
- A47C1/08B60N2/28
- Prosecution counsel
- Troutman Pepper Locke LLP
- Examiner
- CRANMER, LAURIE K
Parties of record
Monahan Products, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Craig R. Smith
- Firm
- Lando & Anastasi LLP
Dorel Juvenile Group INC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Alison C. Casey · Deborah Pollack-Milgate · Heather B. Repicky · Mark J. Nahnsen
- Firm
- Barnes & Thornburg, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Craig R. Smith | Monahan Products, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Alison C. Casey | Dorel Juvenile Group INC | Defendant |
| Deborah Pollack-Milgate | Dorel Juvenile Group INC | Defendant |
| Heather B. Repicky | Dorel Juvenile Group INC | Defendant |
| Mark J. Nahnsen | Dorel Juvenile Group INC | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiff Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby dismisses this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal of all claims is with prejudice and by stipulation of the parties, with each side to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses.”
Case 1:23-cv-10602 · D. Mass. · closed 12 July 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 1:23-cv-10602?
1:23-cv-10602 is a patent infringement action brought by Monahan Products, LLC against Dorel Juvenile Group INC, filed on 20 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case closed on 12 July 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-10602?
US9315124B2 (“Child restraint having indicator device”), assigned to GUANGDONG ROAD MATE GROUP CO., LTD., currently active. The record also lists Child restraint having indicator device.
How was case 1:23-cv-10602 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Monahan Products, LLC d/b/a UPPAbaby, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby dismisses this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal of all claims is with prejudice and by stipulation of the parties, with each side to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses.”
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 1:23-cv-10602 take?
114 calendar days, from filing on 20 Mar 2023 to closure on 12 July 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-10602?
Chief Judge George A. OToole Jr. presided. Craig R. Smith is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Monahan Products. Alison C. Casey, Deborah Pollack-Milgate, Heather B. Repicky and Mark J. Nahnsen appear for defendant Dorel Juvenile Group.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-10602 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.