Robroy Industries Texas, LLC v. ABB, Inc. et al.
Infringement action filed 19 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 23 Oct 2023, with US10982799B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10982799B2
- Application no.
- US16/003525
- Case no.
- 2:23-cv-00223
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 19 May 2023 – 23 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 157 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Seal-off fitting with flame-path control
- 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
Seal-off fitting with flame-path control
A seal-off fitting for a conduit system includes a conduit body defining an inner cavity, at least one conduit port adapted to receive a conduit, and at least one threaded sealing port. The seal-off fitting further includes a threaded seal-off cover engageable with the sealing port, a first coating applied to at least a portion of the conduit body, and a second coating applied to at least of portion of the seal-off cover. At least a portion of the threads of the sealing port and at least a portion of the threads the seal-off cover remain uncoated, with the uncoated threads of the sealing port and the uncoated threads of the seal-off cover defining a flame path for flue gases exiting the conduit body.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 20 Apr 2021
- Earliest priority
- 9 Jun 2017
- Est. expiry
- 8 Jan 2039
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KESSEL, AMANDA LYNN
- Classification
- F16L55/10F16L15/00F16L58/18H02G3/08A62C4/00H02G3/04A62C3/16
- Prosecution counsel
- THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C.
- Examiner
- HOOK, JAMES F
Parties of record
Robroy Industries Texas, LLC
- Core tech
- F16L55/10F16L15/00F16L58/18H02G3/08
- Counsel
- Bryan P. Clark · Cecilia R. Dickson · Kent E. Baldauf Jr.
- Firm
- The Webb Law Firm PC
ABB, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
- Also named
- ABB Installation Products, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Bryan P. Clark | Robroy Industries Texas, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Cecilia R. Dickson | Robroy Industries Texas, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Kent E. Baldauf Jr. | Robroy Industries Texas, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is Plaintiff Robroy Industries Texas, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (the “Notice”). (Dkt. No. 11.) In the Notice, Plaintiff dismisses the abovecaptioned action against Defendants ABB Inc. and ABB Installation Products, Inc. (“Defendants”) with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that each party bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case.”
Case 2:23-cv-00223 · E.D. Tex. · closed 23 October 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 2:23-cv-00223?
2:23-cv-00223 is a patent infringement action brought by Robroy Industries Texas, LLC against ABB, Inc., filed on 19 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 23 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-00223?
US10982799B2 (“Seal-off fitting with flame-path control”), assigned to ROBROY INDUSTRIES – TEXAS, LLC, currently active. The record also lists Seal-off fitting with flame-path control.
How was case 2:23-cv-00223 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is Plaintiff Robroy Industries Texas, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (the “Notice”). (Dkt. No. 11.) In the Notice, Plaintiff dismisses the abovecaptioned action against Defendants ABB Inc. and ABB Installation Products, Inc. (“Defendants”) with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED
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 2:23-cv-00223 take?
157 calendar days, from filing on 19 May 2023 to closure on 23 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-00223?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Bryan P. Clark, Cecilia R. Dickson and Kent E. Baldauf Jr. are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Robroy Industries Texas.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-00223 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.