Talos Engineered Products v. Stock Mfg. & Design Co., Inc.
Infringement action filed 14 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and closed 11 Oct 2023, with US11203489B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US11203489B2
- Application no.
- US17/010377
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-00436
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D. Ohio
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Ohio
- Chief judge
- Michael R. Barrett
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 14 Jul 2023 – 11 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 89 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Modular chute for the transport of articles
- 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
Modular chute for the transport of articles
An improved modular chute comprising a stanchion comprising a plurality of rib connection points; a plurality of rib assemblies extending from the stanchion, each of the rib assemblies comprising at least a first rib, a second rib, and a tie rod connecting the first rib to the second rib; and a lining disposed within one or more of the rib assemblies, wherein the lining comprises a plurality of lining sections.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 21 Dec 2021
- Earliest priority
- 31 Aug 2018
- Est. expiry
- 5 Apr 2039
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- CASPER, ZACHARY · RICHARD, JATHAN · HALE, GERRIT · SULLIVAN, DEWAYNE · HARVEY, MATT
- Classification
- B65G11/06B65G21/08
- Examiner
- BIDWELL, JAMES R
Parties of record
Talos Engineered Products
- Core tech
- B65G11/06B65G21/08
- Counsel
- Ava M. Abner · John Francis Bennett
- Firm
- Frost Brown Todd LLP
Stock Mfg. & Design Co., Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Paul Andrew Blatt
- Firm
- Wood Herron & Evans LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Ava M. Abner | Talos Engineered Products | Plaintiff |
| John Francis Bennett | Talos Engineered Products | Plaintiff |
| Paul Andrew Blatt | Stock Mfg. & Design Co., Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiff Talos Engineered Products, LLC (“TALOS”) and Defendant Stock Mfg. & Design Co., Inc. (“STOCK”) hereby consent to entry of judgment against STOCK and in favor ofTALOS, as follows: 1. U. S. Patent No. 1 1,203,489 (“the Patent in Suit”) asserted by TALOS in the abovecaptioned case is valid. 2. STOCK is making, selling and has sold a product (the “EZ-Flow Modular Chute” or “Accused Product”) that has been accused of patent infringement by TALOS in the above-captioned case. STOCK has not asserted in this lawsuit that the Patent in Suit is invalid, and STOCK does not plan to make such an assertion, in view of the settlement between the Parties. 3. STOCK, its officers, agents, servants, attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with it who are on actual notice hereof by personal service or otherwise, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from making, using, selling, importing, or offering for sale m the United States the Accused Product, or Case: 1:23-cv-00436-MRB Doc #: 10 Filed: 10/11/23 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 54 any mere colorable variations thereof, until the Patent in Suit expires, other than those currently in STOCK’s inventory. 4. The Parties shall bear their own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. 5. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction to enforce this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction and the separate Settlement Agreement entered into between TALOS and STOCK.”
Case 1:23-cv-00436 · S.D. Ohio · closed 11 October 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 1:23-cv-00436?
1:23-cv-00436 is a patent infringement action brought by Talos Engineered Products against Stock Mfg. & Design Co., Inc., filed on 14 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The case closed on 11 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-00436?
US11203489B2 (“Modular chute for the transport of articles”), assigned to TALOS ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, LLC, currently active. The record also lists Modular chute for the transport of articles.
How was case 1:23-cv-00436 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Talos Engineered Products, LLC (“TALOS”) and Defendant Stock Mfg. & Design Co., Inc. (“STOCK”) hereby consent to entry of judgment against STOCK and in favor ofTALOS, as follows: 1. U. S. Patent No. 1 1,203,489 (“the Patent in Suit”) asserted by TALOS in the abovecaptioned case is valid. 2. STOCK is making, selling and has sold a product (the “EZ-Flow Modular Chute” or “Accused Product”) that has been accused of patent infringement by TALOS in the above-captioned case. STOCK has not asserted in this lawsuit that the Patent in Suit is invalid, and STOCK does not plan to make such an
What does consent judgment mean?
A consent judgment is a judgment the parties agree to and the court enters. Unlike a bare dismissal it is enforceable as a judgment.
How long did case 1:23-cv-00436 take?
89 calendar days, from filing on 14 Jul 2023 to closure on 11 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00436?
Chief Judge Michael R. Barrett presided. Ava M. Abner and John Francis Bennett are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Talos Engineered Products. Paul Andrew Blatt appears for defendant Stock Mfg. & Design.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00436 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.