Patent Litigation in Specialised Buildings & Structures

9 cases on record

Cases on record: 9
Classification: E04H15/00 · E04H15/30 · E04H15/32 · E04H15/36 · E04H15/44 · E04H17/10 · E04H17/08 · E04H17/24 · E04H17/06 · E04G21/32 · E01F13/02 · E04F11/18 · E04H15/48 · E04H15/38 · E04H15/46 · A01K97/01 · E04H17/00 · E04H17/14 · E04H15/58
Courts involved: M.D. Fla. · N.D. Tex. · D. Minn. · W.D. Tex. · Fed. Cir. · Court of Justice of Sao Paulo

Case no.	Parties	Court	Filed	Duration	Outcome
3:24-cv-01258	Shibumi Shade, Inc. v. NB Shades, LLC	M.D. Fla.	5 Dec 2024	197 d	Case Stayed
4:24-cv-00866	General Technologies,Inc. v. Post Tech Manufacturing, LLC	N.D. Tex.	11 Sep 2024	337 d	Dismissed without Prejudice
0:24-cv-03091	Ardisam, Inc. v. Clam Corp.	D. Minn.	1 Aug 2024	116 d	Case Settled
6:24-cv-00297	Shibumi Shade, Inc. v. NB Shades, LLC	W.D. Tex.	30 May 2024	188 d	Case Transferred
24-1359	Fortress Iron, LP v. Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc.	Fed. Cir.	17 Jan 2024	639 d	Appeal Dismissed
24-1231	Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP	Fed. Cir.	6 Dec 2023	681 d	Unpatentable
8:23-cv-00063	Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. USA Fence Company	M.D. Fla.	9 Jan 2023	81 d	Case Stayed
2060984-42.2025.8.26.0000	Leroy Merlin Companhia Brasileira de Bricolagem v. Fabinject Indústria Plástica Ltda	Court of Justice of Sao Paulo		–	Appeal Granted
2117725-10.2022.8.26.0000	Fabinject Indústria Plástica Ltda. v. Leroy Merlin Companhia Brasileira de Bricolagem	Court of Justice of Sao Paulo		–	Appeal Dismissed

Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases classified under Specialised Buildings & Structures. Run this in Eureka

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

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. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

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.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Specialised Buildings & Structures Patent litigation record

9 cases on record

Where the claim space is crowded