Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Monsta Athletics v. Easton Diamond Sports et al. | Patent Lawsuit 5:23-cv-00963

Monsta Athletics, LLC v. Easton Diamond Sports, LLC et al.

5:23-cv-00963 C.D. Cal. Closed US6997826B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 26 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and closed 28 Sep 2023, with US6997826B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case consolidated.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US6997826B2
Application no.
US10/383242
Case no.
5:23-cv-00963
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
C.D. Cal.
Court level
District Court
Case region
California
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
26 May 2023 – 28 Sep 2023
Duration
125 days
Basis of termination
Case Consolidated
Products & marks
Composite baseball bat
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 5:23-cv-00963, United States District Court for the Central District of California. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US6997826B2 Inactive App. US10/383242

Composite baseball bat

A single member tubular baseball or softball bat of unitary construction comprised of an elongated handle portion and a striking or barrel portion wherein the barrel portion has internal and external cylindrical layers separated by one or more separation barriers, which are not bonded to said layers, located internally within the barrel thickness, and being in intimate contact with these layers. This results in equivalent or higher performing baseball bats than the prior art, as measured by hitting distance, and more consistent performance. The bats are also less costly to manufacture than prior art double walled bats.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
14 Feb 2006
Est. expiry
7 Mar 2023
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A63B59/06
Prosecution counsel
ASHURST PERKINS COIE US LLP
Examiner
GRAHAM, MARK S.
US6997826B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US6997826B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. The higher-numbered Monsta Action is CONSOLIDATED with the lower-numbered Easton Action for the limited purpose of conducting Claim Construction. All future filings and proceedings shall be made and conducted in the Easton Action. 2. Any party may make a motion at any time to sever the cases, for good cause shown. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the Monsta Action administratively. IT IS SO ORDERED.”

Case 5:23-cv-00963 · C.D. Cal. · closed 28 September 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 5:23-cv-00963?

5:23-cv-00963 is a patent infringement action brought by Monsta Athletics, LLC against Easton Diamond Sports, LLC, filed on 26 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case closed on 28 September 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 5:23-cv-00963?

US6997826B2 (“Composite baseball bat”), assigned to EASTON DIAMOND SPORTS, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Composite baseball bat.

How was case 5:23-cv-00963 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case consolidated. The termination text reads: “Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. The higher-numbered Monsta Action is CONSOLIDATED with the lower-numbered Easton Action for the limited purpose of conducting Claim Construction. All future filings and proceedings shall be made and conducted in the Easton Action. 2. Any party may make a motion at any time to sever the cases, for good cause shown. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the Monsta Action administratively. IT IS SO ORDERED.”

How long did case 5:23-cv-00963 take?

125 calendar days, from filing on 26 May 2023 to closure on 28 September 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 5:23-cv-00963?

David B. Abel and Sevag Demirjian are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Monsta Athletics. Gabrielle E. Bina, Joseph P. Hamilton, Kaitlin Dryden and Rodger K. Carreyn appear for defendant Easton Diamond Sports.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 5:23-cv-00963 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 5:23-cv-00963 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.