Weber, Inc. Patent litigation record

Company 11 cases

11 cases on record naming Weber, Inc.: 3 as claimant, 8 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Profile this company in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

11 cases on record

Cases on record
11
As claimant
3
As respondent
8
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
Not recorded
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
24-723 Provisur Technologies v. Weber, Inc. Defendant U.S. Supreme Court 31 Dec 2024 55 d Petition Dismissed
23-1349 Provisur Technologies v. Weber, Inc. Defendant U.S. Supreme Court 25 Jun 2024 104 d Petition Dismissed
23-1476 Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 8 Feb 2023 195 d Voluntary dismissal
23-1438 Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 30 Jan 2023 611 d Appeal Dismissed in Part
22-1813 Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 19 May 2022 630 d Case Remanded
22-1751 Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 4 May 2022 645 d Case Remanded
5:21-cv-06113 Provisur Technologies, LLC v. Weber, Inc. Defendant W.D. Mo. 21 Sep 2021 1599 d Closed
2021-1883 Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 23 Apr 2021 469 d Closed
2021-1884 Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 23 Apr 2021 469 d Closed
5:20-cv-06069 Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. Defendant W.D. Mo. 6 May 2020 813 d Other
5:19-cv-06021 Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. Defendant W.D. Mo. 22 Feb 2019 2541 d Closed
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Weber, Inc. in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Weber is protecting

Portfolio, claim scope and where its coverage is thin. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Analyse this portfolio
10,000 free credits to start

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

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.

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.