Triteq Lock & Security, LLC v. Minus Forty Technologies Corp. et al.
Infringement action filed 23 Mar 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 6 Apr 2023, with US10612833B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10612833B2
- Application no.
- US15/852709
- Case no.
- 6:22-cv-00378
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 23 Mar 2022 – 6 Apr 2023
- Duration
- 379 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Cooler lock
- 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
Cooler lock
A cooler access control system locks a cooler when occurrence of an event is detected that requires limiting access to the inside of the cooler. Examples of such events include the loss of power to the cooler for a predetermined period of time, the opening of the cooler door for longer than an allowed time, the loss of functionality of a temperature probe and others. In an embodiment, a service mode is supported wherein the door is left unlocked despite the occurrence of such an event, to allow a stocker or other personnel to leave the cooler door open while stocking the cooler with product.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 7 Apr 2020
- Earliest priority
- 18 Jan 2013
- Est. expiry
- 20 Sep 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DENISON, WILLIAM · ROATIS, CALIN
- Classification
- E05B43/00F25D23/02E05B47/06E05B65/00E05B65/08E05B47/00E05B73/00
- Prosecution counsel
- von Briesen & Roper, s.c.
- Examiner
- CUOMO, PETER M.
Parties of record
Triteq Lock & Security, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Dave R. Gunter · Jonathan T. Suder · Richard A. Wojcio
- Firm
- Friedman Suder & Cooke PC
Minus Forty Technologies Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Charles L. Perry · Christopher B. Ferenc · Matthew H. Hartzler · Sean S. Wooden · Terence P. Ross
- Firm
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- Also named
- Minus Forty QBD, Corp.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Dave R. Gunter | Triteq Lock & Security, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jonathan T. Suder | Triteq Lock & Security, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Richard A. Wojcio | Triteq Lock & Security, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Charles L. Perry | Minus Forty Technologies Corp. | Defendant |
| Christopher B. Ferenc | Minus Forty Technologies Corp. | Defendant |
| Matthew H. Hartzler | Minus Forty Technologies Corp. | Defendant |
| Sean S. Wooden | Minus Forty Technologies Corp. | Defendant |
| Terence P. Ross | Minus Forty Technologies Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Redacted Copy of 53 Sealed Order. (sm3) (Entered: 03/16/2023).Parties shall comply with Judge Albright’s updated Standing Order Governing Proceedings – Patent Casesavailable by clicking the hyperlink.”
Case 6:22-cv-00378 · W.D. Tex. · closed 6 April 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 6:22-cv-00378?
6:22-cv-00378 is a patent infringement action brought by Triteq Lock & Security, LLC against Minus Forty Technologies Corp., filed on 23 Mar 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 6 April 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:22-cv-00378?
US10612833B2 (“Cooler lock”), assigned to TRITEQ LOCK AND SECURITY, LLC, currently active. The record also lists Cooler lock.
How was case 6:22-cv-00378 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Redacted Copy of 53 Sealed Order. (sm3) (Entered: 03/16/2023).Parties shall comply with Judge Albright’s updated Standing Order Governing Proceedings – Patent Casesavailable by clicking the hyperlink.”
How long did case 6:22-cv-00378 take?
379 calendar days, from filing on 23 Mar 2022 to closure on 6 April 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-00378?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Dave R. Gunter, Jonathan T. Suder and Richard A. Wojcio are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Triteq Lock & Security. Charles L. Perry, Christopher B. Ferenc, Matthew H. Hartzler, Sean S. Wooden and Terence P. Ross appear for defendant Minus Forty Technologies.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-00378 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.