Book a demo

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

Try now
Studio 010 v. Digital Cashflow et al. | Patent Lawsuit 2:20-cv-01018

Studio 010, Inc. v. Digital Cashflow, LLC et al.

2:20-cv-01018 W.D. Wash. Closed US10525191B1
Get a prior-art report

Declaratory judgement filed 30 Jun 2020 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and closed 13 Oct 2023, with US10525191B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case accepted in part.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US10525191B1
Application no.
US16/438635
Case no.
2:20-cv-01018
Verdict cause
Declaratory judgement
Court
W.D. Wash.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Washington
Chief judge
David G Estudillo
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
30 Jun 2020 – 13 Oct 2023
Duration
1200 days
Basis of termination
Case Accepted in Part
Products & marks
ASIN · HEAR CLEARLY · HEAR® earwax removal Kit
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:20-cv-01018, 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
US10525191B1 Inactive App. US16/438635

Ear canal irrigation system and method

An ear canal irrigator system having a hand-held spray bottle and a conduit tube connected to the spray bottle by a series of components that allow the tube to be connected without being screwed on and also prevents leakage of fluid. The system further includes an insertion tube connected to the conduit tube by a connecting piece having a splash guard, whereby the insertion tube is configured to be placed at or near the ear canal of a user. The insertion tube is shorter in length that the conduit tube and has a smaller diameter than the conduit tube so that when the fluid flows through the connecting piece into the insertion tube, the fluid has a more powerful fluid stream.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
7 Jan 2020
Est. expiry
12 Jun 2039
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61M3/00A61M39/12A61F11/00A61M3/02A61M39/10A61B90/00
Prosecution counsel
Bold IP, PLLC
Examiner
MARCETICH, ADAM
US10525191B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10525191B1 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

“COMES NOW Plaintiff, STUDIO 010, INC. dba EQUADOSE (“Plaintiff” or “Equadose”), by and through undersigned counsel, and by this Amended Complaint seeks declaratory judgment, among other things, against Defendants DIGITAL CASHFLOW LLC dba HEAR CLEARLY and/or THE EAR DOCTORS, CHRIS ACKERMAN, and END RACISM LLC dba HEAR CLEARLY and/or THE EAR DOCTORS, and alleges based on information and belief: NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING 1. Defendants Ackerman and Digital Cashflow LLC (“Digital Cashflow”) knowingly sent a report of intellectual property violations to Washington based Amazon.com with the intent Case 2:20-cv-01018-DGE Document 57 Filed 04/20/21 Page 1 of 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 AMENDED COMPLAINT 4/20/2021 4:39:30 PM EQUA.001 Page 2 and result of baselessly causing Amazon.com to delist Plaintiff’s earwax removal product, falsely contending Plaintiff’s product infringed United States Patent No. 10,525,191 (the “‘191 Patent”), then owned by Defendant Ackerman, subsequently purportedly assigned to Defendant Digital Cashflow after this lawsuit was filed, and later purportedly assigned to an entity identified as End Racism LLC (“End Racism”) along with the assets of Digital Cashflow, including the ‘191 Patent, U.S. Trademark Registration Serial Number 5,567,221 for HEAR CLEARLY (the “ ‘221 Registration”) and associated line of business, goodwill and other assets. Defendants and Plaintiff have history as competitors in disputes dating back at least as early as Summer 2018 to a trademark dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant Digital Cashflow. Plaintiff and Defendants, Digital Cashflow and End Racism, are Amazon.com merchant sellers selling earwax removal products on Amazon. 2. Plaintiff’s falsely accused products have been sold on Amazon.com since 2017, with its current design on sale since at least as early as May 2018. The priority date for the ‘191 Patent is June 12, 2019. Thus, it is straightforwardly the case that either the ‘191 Patent is invalidated by Plaintiff’s prior art product or Plaintiff’s product does not infringe. There is no other legally valid option.”

Case 2:20-cv-01018 · W.D. Wash. · closed 13 October 2023
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 2:20-cv-01018?

2:20-cv-01018 is a patent declaratory judgement brought by Studio 010, Inc. against Digital Cashflow, LLC, filed on 30 Jun 2020 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case closed on 13 October 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 2:20-cv-01018?

US10525191B1 (“Ear canal irrigation system and method”), assigned to END RACISM LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists ASIN, HEAR CLEARLY and HEAR® earwax removal Kit.

How was case 2:20-cv-01018 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case accepted in part. The termination text reads: “COMES NOW Plaintiff, STUDIO 010, INC. dba EQUADOSE (“Plaintiff” or “Equadose”), by and through undersigned counsel, and by this Amended Complaint seeks declaratory judgment, among other things, against Defendants DIGITAL CASHFLOW LLC dba HEAR CLEARLY and/or THE EAR DOCTORS, CHRIS ACKERMAN, and END RACISM LLC dba HEAR CLEARLY and/or THE EAR DOCTORS, and alleges based on information and belief: NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING 1. Defendants Ackerman and Digital Cashflow LLC (“Digital Cashflow”) knowingly sent a report of intellectual property violations to Washington based Amazon.com with the intent Ca

How long did case 2:20-cv-01018 take?

1200 calendar days, from filing on 30 Jun 2020 to closure on 13 October 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:20-cv-01018?

Chief Judge David G Estudillo presided. Kurt Marcus Rylander and Mark E. Beatty are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Studio 010. James Thomas Wilson and Mark Lawrence Lorbiecki appear for defendant Digital Cashflow.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:20-cv-01018 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:20-cv-01018 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.