One World Technologies, Inc. v. Chervon (HK), Ltd.
Patentability filed 4 Jan 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 10 Apr 2023, with US9986686B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: patent upheld.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9986686B2
- Application no.
- US15/250516
- Case no.
- 22-1322
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 4 Jan 2022 – 10 Apr 2023
- Duration
- 461 days
- Basis of termination
- Patent Upheld
- Products & marks
- Gardening tool
- Validity challenges
- 1 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
Gardening tool
A gardening tool, such as a mower, includes a main body and a handle rotatably connected to the main body. The main body includes a motor. The handle includes a plurality of telescopic members slidably connected to each other. The mower further includes a operation assembly for being operated by a user to activate the motor and a control system for sending a control signal to enable or disable the operation of motor by the operation assembly when the handle is out of a secure state.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 5 Jun 2018
- Earliest priority
- 10 Oct 2013
- Est. expiry
- 10 Oct 2034
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2020-00887 · Other · filed by One World Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Techtronic Industries Power Equipment
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- YAMAOKA, TOSHINARI · NIE, FANGJIE · XU, HAISHEN
- Classification
- A01D34/63A01D34/68A01D34/82A01D34/67A01D69/10A01D69/02A01D101/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Greenberg Traurig, LLP
- Examiner
- PEZZUTO, ROBERT E
Parties of record
One World Technologies, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Edward Sikorski
- Firm
- DLA Piper US LLP
Chervon (HK), Ltd.
- Core tech
- A01D34/63A01D34/68A01D34/82A01D34/67
- Counsel
- James J. Lukas Jr.
- Firm
- Greenberg Traurig PA
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Edward Sikorski | One World Technologies, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| James J. Lukas Jr. | Chervon (HK), Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:AFFIRMED.”
Case 22-1322 · Fed. Cir. · closed 10 April 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 22-1322?
22-1322 is a patent patentability brought by One World Technologies, Inc. against Chervon (HK), Ltd., filed on 4 Jan 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 10 April 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 22-1322?
US9986686B2 (“Gardening tool”), assigned to CHERVON (HK) LIMITED, currently active. The record also lists Gardening tool.
How was case 22-1322 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is patent upheld. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:AFFIRMED.”
How long did case 22-1322 take?
461 calendar days, from filing on 4 Jan 2022 to closure on 10 April 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1322?
Edward Sikorski is recorded as counsel for plaintiff One World Technologies. James J. Lukas Jr. appears for defendant Chervon (HK).
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1322 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.