Book a demo

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

Try now
Shenzhen Yilv Technology v. Hong Kong Xingtai International Trade | Patent Lawsuit 2:25-cv-02261

Shenzhen Yilv Technology Co Ltd v. Hong Kong Xingtai International Trade Co Limited

2:25-cv-02261 W.D. Wash. Closed US7819545B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 13 Nov 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and closed 31 Mar 2026, with US7819545B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US7819545B2
Application no.
US12/218205
Case no.
2:25-cv-02261
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
W.D. Wash.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Washington
Chief judge
John H. Chun
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
13 Nov 2025 – 31 Mar 2026
Duration
138 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed without Prejudice
Products & marks
Outdoor solar decorative lights
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:25-cv-02261, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. 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
US7819545B2 Active App. US12/218205

Outdoor solar decorative lights

An outdoor solar powered decorative lighting system includes a light string having a plurality of light bulbs evenly spaced along the length of the string and being electrically connected to a roof mounted solar collector having one or more solar panels or cells for collecting sunlight—radiant energy—from the sun and which is then conveyed to a rechargeable battery enclosed within the solar collector for discharge to provide the power to illuminate the light bulbs and thus create the decorative lighting effect with the solar collector including a switch to automatically turn the light bulbs on at dusk and to switch the light bulbs off at the following sunrise.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
26 Oct 2010
Est. expiry
26 Feb 2029
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
F21L4/00
Prosecution counsel
Ethics Archery, LLC
Examiner
TRUONG, BAO Q
US7819545B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7819545B2 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

“For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 11) and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice. If Defendant seeks to circumvent the covenant in bad faith, Plaintiff may ask that the Court reopen the case and may request sanctions if appropriate.”

Case 2:25-cv-02261 · W.D. Wash. · closed 31 March 2026
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 2:25-cv-02261?

2:25-cv-02261 is a patent infringement action brought by Shenzhen Yilv Technology Co Ltd against Hong Kong Xingtai International Trade Co Limited, filed on 13 Nov 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case closed on 31 March 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 2:25-cv-02261?

US7819545B2 (“Outdoor solar decorative lights”), assigned to OCCUSENSE LLC, currently active. The record also lists Outdoor solar decorative lights.

How was case 2:25-cv-02261 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 11) and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice. If Defendant seeks to circumvent the covenant in bad faith, Plaintiff may ask that the Court reopen the case and may request sanctions if appropriate.”

What does dismissal without prejudice mean?

A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.

How long did case 2:25-cv-02261 take?

138 calendar days, from filing on 13 Nov 2025 to closure on 31 March 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-02261?

Chief Judge John H. Chun presided. Ruoting Men is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Shenzhen Yilv Technology. Glyn E Lewis appears for defendant Hong Kong Xingtai International Trade.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:25-cv-02261 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-02261 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.