Novoluto, GmbH v. Uccellini, Inc.
Infringement action filed 31 Dec 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon and closed 30 Aug 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: default judgment.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9849061B2US9763851B2US9937097B2US11090220B2US11103418B2
- Case no.
- 6:20-cv-02284
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Or.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Oregon
- Chief judge
- Mustafa T. Kasubhai
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 31 Dec 2020 – 30 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 972 days
- Basis of termination
- Default Judgment
- Products & marks
- Conair electric vibrating massager · Handy Hannah All Purpose Electric Massager · Oster Vibra-Massager · Turkey baster bulb head · Wahl Jumbo Electra-Vibe Massage Vibrator · Windmere Prelude 3 massager
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
Stimulation device having an appendage
The invention relates to a stimulation device (1) for erogenous zones, in particular for the clitoris (12), wherein the stimulation device (1) has the following: at least one pressure field generating arrangement (2) with at least one first chamber (3) and at least one second chamber (4) having at least one opening (42) for placing on a body part (11); at least one connection element (5) that connects the first chamber (3) to the second chamber (4); a drive unit (6) that varies the volume of the first chamber (3) such that a pressure field that serves for stimulation is generated via the connection element (5) in the second chamber (4); a control device (7) that activates the drive unit (6), and an appendage (140).
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 26 Dec 2017
- Earliest priority
- 13 Mar 2015
- Est. expiry
- 24 Jul 2035
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2020-00007 · Other · filed by EIS GMBH
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LENKE, MICHAEL
- Classification
- A61F5/00A61H19/00A61H9/00A61H23/02
- Prosecution counsel
- HANLEY, FLIGHT & ZIMMERMAN, LLC
- Examiner
- LACYK, JOHN
Stimulation device
The invention relates to a stimulation device (1) for erogenous zones, in particular for the clitoris (12), which device (1) has at least one pressure field generator (2) with at least a first chamber (3) and at least a second chamber (4) with at least one opening (42) for placing onto a body part (11), and at least one connection element (5) which connects the first chamber (3) to the second chamber (4), and with a drive unit (6) which changes the volume of the first chamber (3) in such a way that, by way of the connection element (5), a pressure field is generated in the second chamber (4) and serves for stimulation; and a control device (7) which controls the drive unit (6).
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 19 Sep 2017
- Earliest priority
- 23 Sep 2013
- Est. expiry
- 22 Jul 2034
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2019-01444 · Patentability · filed by EIS GMBH
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LENKE, MICHAEL
- Classification
- A61H19/00A61H9/00
- Prosecution counsel
- HANLEY, FLIGHT & ZIMMERMAN, LLC
- Examiner
- YU, JUSTINE
Also asserted in this case
3 moreThe docket lists 5 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 3 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Novoluto, GmbH
- Core tech
- A61F5/00A61H19/00A61H9/00A61H23/02
- Counsel
- Califf Cooper · Lisa Erin Margonis · Peter C. Schechter · Scott E. Davis · Tammy J. Terry
- Firm
- Klarquist, Sparkman LLP, Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton LLP
Uccellini, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Nathan C. Brunette · Steven T. Lovett · Uccellini Inc.
- Firm
- Stoel Rives LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Califf Cooper | Novoluto, GmbH | Plaintiff |
| Lisa Erin Margonis | Novoluto, GmbH | Plaintiff |
| Peter C. Schechter | Novoluto, GmbH | Plaintiff |
| Scott E. Davis | Novoluto, GmbH | Plaintiff |
| Tammy J. Terry | Novoluto, GmbH | Plaintiff |
| Nathan C. Brunette | Uccellini, Inc. | Defendant |
| Steven T. Lovett | Uccellini, Inc. | Defendant |
| Uccellini Inc. | Uccellini, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“MCSHANE, Judge: Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 80), and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Although Defendant did not file objections, I review de novo. United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 1998). I find no error and conclude the report is correct. Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 80) is adopted in full. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 30th day of August, 2023.MCSHANE, District Judge: Based on the record, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 30th day of August, 2023.”
Case 6:20-cv-02284 · D. Or. · closed 30 August 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 6:20-cv-02284?
6:20-cv-02284 is a patent infringement action brought by Novoluto, GmbH against Uccellini, Inc., filed on 31 Dec 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The case closed on 30 August 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 6:20-cv-02284?
US9849061B2 (“Stimulation device having an appendage”), assigned to NOVOLUTO GMBH, currently active; US9763851B2 (“Stimulation device”), assigned to NOVOLUTO GMBH, currently active; US9937097B2 (“Stimulation device having an appendage”), assigned to NOVOLUTO GMBH; US11090220B2 (“Stimulation device”), assigned to NOVOLUTO GMBH; US11103418B2 (“Stimulation device”), assigned to NOVOLUTO GMBH. The record also lists Conair electric vibrating massager, Handy Hannah All Purpose Electric Massager, Oster Vibra-Massager, Turkey baster bulb head, Wahl Jumbo Electra-Vibe Massage Vibrator and Windmere Prelude 3 massager.
How was case 6:20-cv-02284 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is default judgment. The termination text reads: “MCSHANE, Judge: Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 80), and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Although Defendant did not file objections, I review de novo. United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 1998). I find no error and conclude the report is correct. Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 80) is adopted in full. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 30th day of August, 2023.MCSHANE, District Judge: B
What does default judgment mean?
A default judgment is entered when a defendant does not appear or does not defend the action.
How long did case 6:20-cv-02284 take?
972 calendar days, from filing on 31 Dec 2020 to closure on 30 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:20-cv-02284?
Chief Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai presided. Califf Cooper, Lisa Erin Margonis, Peter C. Schechter, Scott E. Davis and Tammy J. Terry are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Novoluto. Nathan C. Brunette, Steven T. Lovett and Uccellini Inc. appear for defendant Uccellini.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:20-cv-02284 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.