STX, Inc. v. StringKing, Inc.
Infringement action filed 6 Nov 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 8 Jun 2026, with US12274930B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US12274930B2
- Application no.
- US17/681152
- Case no.
- 1:25-cv-01359
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 6 Nov 2025 – 8 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 214 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Lacrosse gloves under the name “Flyer1”
- 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
Stitchless dorsal padding for protective sports gloves and other protective gear
A protective glove can include a unitary dorsal panel formed from an inner scrim material and a plurality of protective elements molded directly to an exterior surface of the inner scrim. Two or more protective elements can be formed as an array of discrete islands each separated by substantially zero-elevation interstitial spaces. The unitary dorsal panel can be sewn or otherwise attached circumferentially to the palmer sections of the glove. This array of protective elements can provide increased protection to the user’s fingers, hands, wrists, and lower forearms while maintaining flexibility and tactile feel on both palmar and dorsal sides of the glove, increasing flexibility where needed without compromising protection.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 15 Apr 2025
- Earliest priority
- 22 Jan 2014
- Est. expiry
- 1 Feb 2036
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KUCHARSKY, DAVID · MCKERNAN, PATRICK M.
- Classification
- A63B71/14A41D13/015A41D19/015A63B102/14A63B102/24
- Prosecution counsel
- PLUMSEA LAW GROUP, LLC
- Examiner
- MORAN, KATHERINE M
Parties of record
STX, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Alexander Wharton · Barry J. Herman · Dana Kathryn Severance · James K. Archibald · Julie C. Giardina · Stephanie S. Riley
- Firm
- Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
StringKing, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Andrew Russell · Jesse J. Camacho · Virginia Lynch
- Firm
- Shaw Keller LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alexander Wharton | STX, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Barry J. Herman | STX, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Dana Kathryn Severance | STX, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| James K. Archibald | STX, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Julie C. Giardina | STX, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Stephanie S. Riley | STX, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Andrew Russell | StringKing, Inc. | Defendant |
| Jesse J. Camacho | StringKing, Inc. | Defendant |
| Virginia Lynch | StringKing, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“STIPULATED DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(c), Plaintiff STX, LLC and Defendant StringKing, Inc. hereby stipulate and agree that the above-referenced action, including all claims and counterclaims, is dismissed without prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 1:25-cv-01359 · D. Del. · closed 8 June 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 1:25-cv-01359?
1:25-cv-01359 is a patent infringement action brought by STX, Inc. against StringKing, Inc., filed on 6 Nov 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 8 June 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 1:25-cv-01359?
US12274930B2 (“Stitchless dorsal padding for protective sports gloves and other protective gear”), assigned to WM. T. BURNETT IP, LLC, currently active. The record also lists Lacrosse gloves under the name “Flyer1”.
How was case 1:25-cv-01359 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “STIPULATED DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(c), Plaintiff STX, LLC and Defendant StringKing, Inc. hereby stipulate and agree that the above-referenced action, including all claims and counterclaims, is dismissed without prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.”
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 1:25-cv-01359 take?
214 calendar days, from filing on 6 Nov 2025 to closure on 8 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-01359?
Alexander Wharton, Barry J. Herman, Dana Kathryn Severance, James K. Archibald, Julie C. Giardina and Stephanie S. Riley are recorded as counsel for plaintiff STX. Andrew Russell, Jesse J. Camacho and Virginia Lynch appear for defendant StringKing.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-01359 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.