Steel City Enterprises, Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule ‘A’
Infringement action filed 1 Aug 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 24 Apr 2026, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patents involved
- USD1055627SUSD977973SUSD979404S
- Case no.
- 6:25-cv-00335
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Leon Schydlower
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 1 Aug 2025 – 24 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 266 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Jug Plug
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
Container plug
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 31 Dec 2024
- Est. expiry
- 31 Dec 2039
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KUTCHER, BRENDAN
- Prosecution counsel
- QUICKPATENTS
- Examiner
- KUKELLA, JOSEPH
Container plug
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 14 Feb 2023
- Est. expiry
- 14 Feb 2038
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KUTCHER, BRENDAN
- Prosecution counsel
- QUICKPATENTS
- Examiner
- POSTHAUER, CATHERINE S
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
Steel City Enterprises, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Arthur Robert Weaver
- Firm
- The Brickell IP Group PLLC
The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule ‘A’
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Arthur Robert Weaver | Steel City Enterprises, Inc. | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, 1 the Court dismisses this action without prejudice. SO ORDERED.”
Case 6:25-cv-00335 · W.D. Tex. · closed 24 April 2026
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 6:25-cv-00335?
6:25-cv-00335 is a patent infringement action brought by Steel City Enterprises, Inc. against The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule ‘A’, filed on 1 Aug 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 24 April 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 6:25-cv-00335?
USD1055627S (“Container plug”), assigned to KUTCHER, BRENDAN, currently active; USD977973S (“Container plug”), assigned to STEEL CITY ENTERPRISES INC., currently active; USD979404S (“Container plug”), assigned to STEEL CITY ENTERPRISES INC.. The record also lists Jug Plug.
How was case 6:25-cv-00335 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, 1 the Court dismisses this action without prejudice. SO ORDERED.”
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 6:25-cv-00335 take?
266 calendar days, from filing on 1 Aug 2025 to closure on 24 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:25-cv-00335?
Chief Judge Leon Schydlower presided. Arthur Robert Weaver is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Steel City Enterprises.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:25-cv-00335 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.