Ventum, LLC v. Pierer Mobility, AG
Infringement action filed 13 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon and closed 26 Jan 2023, with US10407120B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10407120B2
- Application no.
- US15/508919
- Case no.
- 3:22-cv-01544
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Or.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Oregon
- Chief judge
- Michael H. Simon
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 13 Oct 2022 – 26 Jan 2023
- Duration
- 105 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Cycle frame fluid reservoir
- 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
Cycle frame fluid reservoir
A fluid reservoir for a cycle frame, the cycle frame including a top tube extending from a head end to a seat mounting, the fluid reservoir including a body defining a cavity for containing a fluid, the body positioned in abutment with at least a part of the top tube in use, and wherein the body is shaped so that the fluid reservoir and the at least a part of the top tube cooperate to define an aerodynamic profile.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 10 Sep 2019
- Earliest priority
- 5 Sep 2014
- Est. expiry
- 3 Sep 2035
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SEEAR, PETER KENNETH
- Classification
- B62K19/40B62K19/02B62K3/04B62K3/06B62K3/10B62J9/00B62J99/00B62K19/16B62K19/36
- Prosecution counsel
- Kolitch Romano Dascenzo Gates LLP
- Examiner
- HURLEY, KEVIN
Parties of record
Ventum, LLC
- Core tech
- B62K19/40B62K19/02B62K3/04B62K3/06
- Counsel
- Shawn J. Kolitch.
- Firm
- Kolitch Romano Dascenzo Gates LLC
Pierer Mobility, AG
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Shawn J. Kolitch. | Ventum, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Ventum LLC hereby voluntarily dismisses this action without prejudice.”
Case 3:22-cv-01544 · D. Or. · closed 26 January 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 3:22-cv-01544?
3:22-cv-01544 is a patent infringement action brought by Ventum, LLC against Pierer Mobility, AG, filed on 13 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The case closed on 26 January 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 3:22-cv-01544?
US10407120B2 (“Cycle frame fluid reservoir”), assigned to VENTUM LLC, currently active. The record also lists Cycle frame fluid reservoir.
How was case 3:22-cv-01544 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Ventum LLC hereby voluntarily dismisses this action without prejudice.”
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 3:22-cv-01544 take?
105 calendar days, from filing on 13 Oct 2022 to closure on 26 January 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:22-cv-01544?
Chief Judge Michael H. Simon presided. Shawn J. Kolitch. is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Ventum.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:22-cv-01544 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.