Array Technologies, Inc. v. Exosun, Inc.

2:17-cv-02883 D. Ariz. Closed US8459249B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 25 Aug 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and closed 13 Sep 2018, with US8459249B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: other.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US8459249B2
Application no.
US12/137764
Case no.
2:17-cv-02883
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Ariz.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Arizona
Judge
Steven P Logan
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
25 Aug 2017 – 13 Sep 2018
Duration
384 days
Basis of termination
Other
Products & marks
Exotrack HZ products - Solar tracking equipment
Validity challenges
1 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:17-cv-02883, United States District Court for the District of Arizona. 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
US8459249B2 Active App. US12/137764

Single axis solar tracking system

ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

A solar tracking system with a torque tube supporting solar panels. Columns support the system and have bearings for rotation of the torque tube. A drive is coupled to the torque tube and is driven by a gearbox, such as a worm gear assembly, for rotating the array of solar panels to follow the sun's diurnal motion. The array can rotate in an opposite direction, or backtrack, to prevent shadowing from one module row to another. Multiple gearboxes can be mechanically linked by drive shafts and driven by a single motor. The drive shafts may incorporate universal joints for uneven terrain or staggered configurations. Harmonic dampers can be affixed to the solar panels to decouple wind forces which allows the use of larger solar panels.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
11 Jun 2013
Earliest priority
15 Jun 2007
Est. expiry
5 Feb 2030
Validity challenges
1 on recordIPR2018-00801 · filed by ARCELORMITTAL
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
F24J2/38F24S50/20
Prosecution counsel
Maschoff Brennan
US8459249B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US8459249B2, from the published patent document
US8459249B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US8459249B2, from the published patent document
Get a novelty search report 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

AttorneyForRole
Bennett Evan CooperArray Technologies, Inc.Plaintiff
Exosun, Inc.Exosun, Inc.Defendant
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

Case 2:17-cv-02883 · D. Ariz. · closed 13 September 2018
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.

Who else has this plaintiff sued? Every case naming Array Technologies, with the patent, court and outcome for each Could my product read on this patent? Claim-by-claim comparison against your own design What else is litigated in this field? The dispute map for f24j
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2:17-cv-02883?

2:17-cv-02883 is a patent infringement action brought by Array Technologies, Inc. against Exosun, Inc., filed on 25 Aug 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The case closed on 13 September 2018.

Which patent was asserted in 2:17-cv-02883?

US8459249B2 (“Single axis solar tracking system”), assigned to ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., currently active. The record also lists Exotrack HZ products - Solar tracking equipment.

How long did case 2:17-cv-02883 take?

384 calendar days, from filing on 25 Aug 2017 to closure on 13 September 2018.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:17-cv-02883?

Judge Steven P Logan presided. Bennett Evan Cooper is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Array Technologies. Exosun, Inc. appears for defendant Exosun.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:17-cv-02883 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question
Next step

Go further with this record

Read how the method works, run it on your own product, then size the next step.

  • 01 / How-toHow to run a freedom-to-operate analysisScope, search, claim review and the report counsel will ask for.GuideRead
  • 02 / AI agentFTO ReportCheck whether your own product could read on these claims.Patsnap EurekaRun it
  • 03 / Free toolAI prior art searchDescribe an idea, get the closest patents.AI resultTry tool

More next stepsCompetitor patent monitoring tools compared

Browse related dockets
Cases in D. Ariz. All patent litigation records

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:17-cv-02883 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. It does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

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.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Patent figures. Any patent drawings shown are reproduced from the identified patent publications to illustrate the cited documents, and do not establish the scope, validity or enforceability of any patent.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.