Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Whitewater West Industries v. American Wave Machines | Patent Lawsuit 3:22-cv-00729

Whitewater West Industries, Ltd v. American Wave Machines, Inc.

3:22-cv-00729 S.D. Cal. Closed 4 patents
Get a prior-art report

Declaratory judgement filed 20 May 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and closed 29 Nov 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
3:22-cv-00729
Verdict cause
Declaratory judgement
Court
S.D. Cal.
Court level
District Court
Case region
California
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
20 May 2022 – 29 Nov 2023
Duration
558 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Endless Surf™
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 3:22-cv-00729, United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US8434966B1 Active App. US13/411520

Sequenced chamber wave generator apparatus and method

A wave generating apparatus and method is provided in which a controller actuates a plurality of wave generating chambers in sequence using a delay between actuation of each chamber to produce a rideable wave in a pool. The actuation delay period may be a predetermined proportion of the chamber period. The amount of delay in the sequence can determine the direction that the peak of the wave travels and the amplitude of the peak. Through the sequencing, the peak of the wave produced can travel in a direction not substantially perpendicular to the wave generating chambers.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
7 May 2013
Est. expiry
3 Mar 2032
Validity challenges
1 on recordIPR2022-01033 · Patentability · filed by WhiteWater West Industries, Ltd.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
E04H4/00
Examiner
PINNOCK, TARA M.
US8434966B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8434966B1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US9279263B2 Active App. US13/603223

Sequenced chamber wave generator apparatus and method

A wave generating apparatus and method is provided in which a controller actuates a plurality of wave generating chambers in sequence using a delay between actuation of each chamber to produce a rideable wave in a pool. The actuation delay period may be a predetermined proportion of the chamber period. The sequence creates a surging motion in the pool that changes the characteristics of the waves to create a considerably hollow barreling wave. The flow of water created by a sequence may resemble a diamond pattern and additional patterns may resemble diamonds linked at the vertices. This pattern effectively reduces the depth of the water between successive waves, which causes them to pitch away from the chambers and create a considerably hollow barrel.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
8 Mar 2016
Est. expiry
3 Mar 2032
Validity challenges
1 on recordIPR2022-01034 · Patentability · filed by WhiteWater West Industries, Ltd.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A47K3/10E04H4/00
Examiner
LE, HUYEN
US9279263B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9279263B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

2 more

The docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.

Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)A)(i), Plaintiff WhiteWater West Industries, Ltd. (“WhiteWater”), hereby dismisses the abovecaptioned action. Dismissal of this action is proper without a court order by filing of a notice of dismissal because this notice is filed before the opposing party has served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(B), the dismissal shall be without prejudice.”

Case 3:22-cv-00729 · S.D. Cal. · closed 29 November 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 3:22-cv-00729?

3:22-cv-00729 is a patent declaratory judgement brought by Whitewater West Industries, Ltd against American Wave Machines, Inc., filed on 20 May 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The case closed on 29 November 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 3:22-cv-00729?

US8434966B1 (“Sequenced chamber wave generator apparatus and method”), assigned to AMERICAN WAVE MACHINES, INC., currently active; US9279263B2 (“Sequenced chamber wave generator apparatus and method”), assigned to AMERICAN WAVE MACHINES, INC., currently active; US10662663B2 (“Wave generator with wave damping”), assigned to AMERICAN WAVES MACHINES, INC.; US10738492B1 (“Aquatic sports amusement apparatus”), assigned to AMERICAN WAVE MACHINES, INC.. The record also lists Endless Surf™.

How was case 3:22-cv-00729 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)A)(i), Plaintiff WhiteWater West Industries, Ltd. (“WhiteWater”), hereby dismisses the abovecaptioned action. Dismissal of this action is proper without a court order by filing of a notice of dismissal because this notice is filed before the opposing party has served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(B), the dismissal shall be 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-00729 take?

558 calendar days, from filing on 20 May 2022 to closure on 29 November 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:22-cv-00729?

Joanne N. Davies, Joseph R.R. Tache and Roger Leonard Scott are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Whitewater West Industries. Aileen M. Hunter, Norman Michael Aspis, Robert Tyler Goodwyn IV and Scott W. Cummings appear for defendant American Wave Machines.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 3:22-cv-00729 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:22-cv-00729 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.