Wangs Alliance Corporation v. Hinkley Lighting, Inc.
Infringement action filed 10 Mar 2023 in the United States International Trade Commission and closed 6 Jul 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case settled.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US11274816B2US10920971B2US10969088B1
- Case no.
- 337-TA-1358
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- United States International Trade Commission
- Court level
- ITC
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- Clark Cheney
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 10 Mar 2023 – 6 Jul 2023
- Duration
- 118 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Settled
- Products & marks
- LED lighting methods and apparatus
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
LED lighting methods and apparatus
LED related lighting methods and apparatus are described. Various features relate to water tight light fixtures. Some of the fixtures are spotlights while other fixture are intended for in ground use. The light fixtures in at least some embodiments include power control features. In spotlight embodiments beam angle and power or light output can be controlled without opening the light assembly or compromising the water tight seals which also protect against dirt. In ground embodiments support tilt angle setting which allow a user to set the light fixture to one or more tilt angles. Beam angle can also be changed in some embodiments as well as power control. Beam angle, power control and tilt angle adjustments are supported in some embodiments but need not be supported in all embodiments with some embodiments using one or more of the described features but not all features.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 15 Mar 2022
- Earliest priority
- 18 Jan 2016
- Est. expiry
- 19 Jan 2036
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ERDENER, BASAR · PUVANAKIJJAKORN, VORAVIT
- Classification
- F21V21/26H05B45/10H05B45/37H05B45/50H05B45/14H05B45/38F21V29/70F21S8/08F21V31/00F21V7/00F21V9/00F21V14/06F21V17/10F21V17/12F21V17/16F21V19/00F21V19/02F21V21/30F21V23/00F21V31/03F21W131/10F21Y101/00F21Y115/10
- Prosecution counsel
- Weiss & Arons LLP
- Examiner
- COUGHLIN, ANDREW J
LED lighting methods and apparatus
LED related lighting methods and apparatus are described. Various features relate to water tight light fixtures. Some of the fixtures are spotlights while other fixture are intended for in ground use. The light fixtures in at least some embodiments include power control features. In spotlight embodiments beam angle and power or light output can be controlled without opening the light assembly or compromising the water tight seals which also protect against dirt. In ground embodiments support tilt angle setting which allow a user to set the light fixture to one or more tilt angles. Beam angle can also be changed in some embodiments as well as power control. Beam angle, power control and tilt angle adjustments are supported in some embodiments but need not be supported in all embodiments with some embodiments using one or more of the described features but not all features.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 16 Feb 2021
- Earliest priority
- 18 Jan 2016
- Est. expiry
- 19 Jan 2036
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ERDENER, BASAR · PUVANAKIJJAKORN, VORAVIT
- Classification
- F21V21/26F21V19/02H05B45/10H05B45/37H05B45/50H05B45/14H05B45/38F21V29/70F21S8/08F21V31/00F21V31/03F21V9/00F21V14/06F21V17/10F21V19/00F21V17/12F21V17/16F21V21/30F21V7/00F21V23/00F21Y115/10F21W131/10F21Y101/00H05B44/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Weiss & Arons LLP
- Examiner
- COUGHLIN, ANDREW J
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Wangs Alliance Corporation
- Core tech
- F21V21/26H05B45/10H05B45/37H05B45/50
- Counsel
- David F. Nickel
- Firm
- Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel PC
Hinkley Lighting, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Todd Tucker
- Firm
- Calfee Halter & Griswold, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| David F. Nickel | Wangs Alliance Corporation | Plaintiff |
| Todd Tucker | Hinkley Lighting, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Participant Disposition: Settlement”
Case 337-TA-1358 · United States International Trade Commission · closed 6 July 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 337-TA-1358?
337-TA-1358 is a patent infringement action brought by Wangs Alliance Corporation against Hinkley Lighting, Inc., filed on 10 Mar 2023 in the United States International Trade Commission. The case closed on 6 July 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 337-TA-1358?
US11274816B2 (“LED lighting methods and apparatus”), assigned to WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION, currently active; US10920971B2 (“LED lighting methods and apparatus”), assigned to WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION, currently active; US10969088B1 (“LED lighting methods and apparatus”), assigned to WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION. The record also lists LED lighting methods and apparatus.
How was case 337-TA-1358 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case settled. The termination text reads: “Participant Disposition: Settlement”
How long did case 337-TA-1358 take?
118 calendar days, from filing on 10 Mar 2023 to closure on 6 July 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 337-TA-1358?
Chief Judge Clark Cheney presided. David F. Nickel is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Wangs Alliance. Todd Tucker appears for defendant Hinkley Lighting.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 337-TA-1358 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.