Signode Industrial Group, LLC v. Polychem, LLC
Infringement action filed 22 Apr 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 21 Feb 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US11104460B2US9586708B2US11267596B2
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-00519
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 22 Apr 2022 – 21 Feb 2023
- Duration
- 305 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Strapping apparatus · Strapping device having a pivotable rocker
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
Strapping apparatus
A strapping apparatus for strapping articles with a strapping band having a tensioning device for imparting a band tension to a loop of the strapping band, the tensioning device including a driveable tensioning element provided for engaging the strapping band to impart a band tension. The strapping apparatus including a connecting device for generating a permanent connection, in particular a welded connection, at two regions, situated one above the other, of the loop of the strapping band. The strapping apparatus is configured to achieve the release of the tensioning element from the strapping band reliably to avoid or reduce adverse characteristics attributed to the release of the tensioning device from the band.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 31 Aug 2021
- Earliest priority
- 18 Sep 2016
- Est. expiry
- 23 Feb 2038
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- NEESER, MIRCO · TAKIDIS, DIMITRIOS · KELLER, ANDREAS
- Classification
- B65B13/32B65B13/22B65B13/18B65B65/02
- Prosecution counsel
- Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP
- Examiner
- GERRITY, STEPHEN F.
Strapping apparatus
In the case of a strapping apparatus for strapping articles with a strapping band, having a base plate which is provided for arranging on an article, having a tensioning device with which a band tension can be applied to the strapping band, the tensioning device being provided for this purpose with an actuable tensioning tool which can be brought into and out of contact with the band, having a sealing device, in particular a friction-welding device with which, by contact with the band, two band layers can be permanently connected to each other by forming a seal between the two band layers, being provided with a plurality of actuating elements with which functions of the strapping unit can be set and/or initiated upon actuation of one or more the actuating elements, the functional reliability of the strapping apparatus is intended to be improved and in particular the possibility of faulty conditions reduced. In order to achieve this, means for locking at least one or more of the actuating elements are proposed.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 7 Mar 2017
- Earliest priority
- 14 Nov 2011
- Est. expiry
- 14 Nov 2032
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- FINZO, FLAVIO
- Classification
- B65B13/32B65B13/02B65B13/18
- Prosecution counsel
- Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP
- Examiner
- EKIERT, TERESA M
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Signode Industrial Group, LLC
- Core tech
- B65B13/32B65B13/22B65B13/18B65B65/02
- Counsel
- Devon C. Beane · Jason A. Engel · Jonah B. Heemstra · Matthew B. Goeller · Megan E. O · Steven L. Caponi
- Firm
- K&L Gates, LLP
Polychem, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Charles H. Sanders · Jack B. Blumenfeld · Jeremy A. Tigan · Matthew J. Moore
- Firm
- Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Devon C. Beane | Signode Industrial Group, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jason A. Engel | Signode Industrial Group, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jonah B. Heemstra | Signode Industrial Group, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Matthew B. Goeller | Signode Industrial Group, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Megan E. O | Signode Industrial Group, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Steven L. Caponi | Signode Industrial Group, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Charles H. Sanders | Polychem, LLC | Defendant |
| Jack B. Blumenfeld | Polychem, LLC | Defendant |
| Jeremy A. Tigan | Polychem, LLC | Defendant |
| Matthew J. Moore | Polychem, LLC | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“WHEREAS Plaintiff Signode Industrial Group LLC and Defendant Polychem, LLC, have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated February 15, 2023 (the “Agreement”) to resolve this action; THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties that, subject to the terms of the Agreement, and approval of the Court: 1) all claims asserted by Signode in this action are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); 2) all counterclaims asserted by Polychem in this action are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); 3) each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this action; and 4) this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter with respect to disputes concerning the interpretation or enforcement of the Agreement.”
Case 1:22-cv-00519 · D. Del. · closed 21 February 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-00519?
1:22-cv-00519 is a patent infringement action brought by Signode Industrial Group, LLC against Polychem, LLC, filed on 22 Apr 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 21 February 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:22-cv-00519?
US11104460B2 (“Strapping apparatus”), assigned to SIGNODE INDUSTRIAL GROUP LLC, currently active; US9586708B2 (“Strapping apparatus”), assigned to ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC., currently active; US11267596B2 (“Strapping device having a pivotable rocker”), assigned to SIGNODE INDUSTRIAL GROUP LLC. The record also lists Strapping apparatus and Strapping device having a pivotable rocker.
How was case 1:22-cv-00519 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “WHEREAS Plaintiff Signode Industrial Group LLC and Defendant Polychem, LLC, have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated February 15, 2023 (the “Agreement”) to resolve this action; THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties that, subject to the terms of the Agreement, and approval of the Court: 1) all claims asserted by Signode in this action are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); 2) all counterclaims asserted by Polychem in this action are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil P
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 1:22-cv-00519 take?
305 calendar days, from filing on 22 Apr 2022 to closure on 21 February 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-00519?
Devon C. Beane, Jason A. Engel, Jonah B. Heemstra, Matthew B. Goeller, Megan E. O and Steven L. Caponi are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Signode Industrial Group. Charles H. Sanders, Jack B. Blumenfeld, Jeremy A. Tigan and Matthew J. Moore appear for defendant Polychem.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-00519 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.