Chikezie Ottah v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Infringement action filed 9 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and closed 22 Nov 2023, with US7152840B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: judgment on the merits for defendant.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7152840B2
- Application no.
- US10/366779
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-10435
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D.N.Y.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New York
- Chief judge
- Jesse M. Furman
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 9 Dec 2022 – 22 Nov 2023
- Duration
- 348 days
- Basis of termination
- Judgment on the merits for Defendant
- Products & marks
- Book holder
- 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
Book holder
A book holder removably attachable to a vehicle or structure such as a stroller, walker, wheelchair or car seat for mobile applications. The book holder for holding a book or drawing surface in a usable position thereon for by the occupant of the vehicle. The book holder comprising an adjustable clasp on the vehicle, an arm extending to a book platform, the arm providing rotational pivotal and axial adjustment to hold the platform in spaced relation to the clasp. A plurality of spring biased clamps on the platform to secure the book to the book holder.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 26 Dec 2006
- Est. expiry
- 24 Apr 2023
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- OTTAH, CHIKEZIE · OTTAH, CHINEYE · OTTAH, KENETH
- Classification
- A47B5/04A47B23/02
- Examiner
- FERNSTROM, KURT
Parties of record
Chikezie Ottah
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Chikezie Ottah
- Firm
- Not recorded
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jason Douglas Barnes
- Firm
- Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Chikezie Ottah | Chikezie Ottah | Plaintiff |
| Jason Douglas Barnes | Metropolitan Transportation Authority | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 22, 2023, the MTA’s motion to dismiss must be and is GRANTED. Further, the Court declines to sua sponte grant Ottah leave to amend, as it is plain that, among other things, any amendment would be futile. See Bracewell, 2021 WL 5910065, at *11 (“Given [Ottah’s] extensive history of filing unsuccesssful lawsuits relating to the same patent and involving the same or closely analogous issues to those implicated by this action, the Court does not believe that [Ottah’s] pleading deficiencies are remediable by amendment.”). Finally, the Court certifies, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Memorandum Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Accordingly, judgment is entered for the MTA and the case is closed.”
Case 1:22-cv-10435 · S.D.N.Y. · closed 22 November 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 1:22-cv-10435?
1:22-cv-10435 is a patent infringement action brought by Chikezie Ottah against Metropolitan Transportation Authority, filed on 9 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case closed on 22 November 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-10435?
US7152840B2 (“Book holder”), assigned to OTTAH, CHIKEZIE, currently inactive. The record also lists Book holder.
How was case 1:22-cv-10435 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is judgment on the merits for defendant. The termination text reads: “It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 22, 2023, the MTA’s motion to dismiss must be and is GRANTED. Further, the Court declines to sua sponte grant Ottah leave to amend, as it is plain that, among other things, any amendment would be futile. See Bracewell, 2021 WL 5910065, at *11 (“Given [Ottah’s] extensive history of filing unsuccesssful lawsuits relating to the same patent and involving the same or closely analogous issues to those implicated by this action, the Court does not believe that [Ottah’s]
What does judgment on the merits mean?
A judgment on the merits decides the substance of the claims, as opposed to ending the case on procedural grounds.
How long did case 1:22-cv-10435 take?
348 calendar days, from filing on 9 Dec 2022 to closure on 22 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-10435?
Chief Judge Jesse M. Furman presided. Chikezie Ottah is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Chikezie Ottah. Jason Douglas Barnes appears for defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-10435 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.