Infringement action filed 18 Nov 2020 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and closed 21 Jul 2023, with US6918801B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: judgment on the merits for defendant.
A vehicle adapted to operate on dry land, in soft terrain, and while floating. The vehicle includes a chassis formed by two interconnected pontoon sections sized such that the chassis and equipment will float. The pontoons are fitted with a track system providing propulsion to the vehicle. The chassis a plurality of spuds that are deployed to a position extending below the bottom of the pontoons so as to stabilize the vehicle for operations while floating.
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
"The Court having ruled on Defendant, Weeks Marine, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 162) and having granted summary judgment in Defendant’s favor hereby issues the following final judgment, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 1. Claims 1-5 and 9-15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,918,801 are each declared invalid because they lack novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102. 2. There be judgment in favor of Defendant, Weeks Marine, Inc. and against Plaintiff, Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, Inc., dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. 3. That Plaintiff shall pay all costs of this matter."
Case 2:20-cv-03135 · E.D. La. · closed 21 July 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.
2:20-cv-03135 is a patent infringement action brought by Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines, Inc. against Weeks Marine, filed on 18 Nov 2020 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The case closed on 21 July 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:20-cv-03135?
US6918801B2 (“Amphibious vehicle”), assigned to WILCO MARSH BUGGIES AND DRAGLINES, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Amphibious vehicle.
How was case 2:20-cv-03135 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is judgment on the merits for defendant. The termination text reads: "The Court having ruled on Defendant, Weeks Marine, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 162) and having granted summary judgment in Defendant’s favor hereby issues the following final judgment, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 1. Claims 1-5 and 9-15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,918,801 are each declared invalid because they lack novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102. 2. There be judgment in favor of Defendant, Weeks Marine, Inc. and against Plaintiff, Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, Inc., dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. 3. That Plaintiff shall pay all costs of this matt
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:20-cv-03135 take?
975 calendar days, from filing on 18 Nov 2020 to closure on 21 July 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:20-cv-03135?
Adam Vincent Vickers, George W. Healy IV, Gregory D. Latham, Ian Charles Barras, Stephen M. Kepper and Thomas St. Paul Keaty II are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines. Andrew Scott Harris, Henry Steven Rauschenberger, Jeffrey Jay Phillips, Michael K. Leachman and Robert Lawrence Waddell appear for defendant Weeks Marine.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:20-cv-03135 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:20-cv-03135 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.
