Fire-fighting Patent litigation record

Technology 17 cases

17 cases on record in Fire-fighting. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

17 cases on record

Cases on record
17
Classification
A62C27/00 · E06C5/04 · E06C5/00 · E06C5/32 · A62C35/58 · A62C35/62 · A62C35/60 · A62C35/64 · B60B35/00 · B60G11/10 · E06C5/38 · B60G11/02 · B60G11/27 · A62C35/68 · A62C5/02 · A62C35/00 · A62C35/08 · A62C2/00 · A62C39/00 · B01D53/22 · A62B7/00 · A62B7/14 · A62C3/07 · A62C99/00
Courts involved
Fed. Cir. · D. Nev. · M.D. Fla. · E.D. Wis. · D. Utah · E.D. Mo. · N.D. Tex. · E.D.N.Y. · Court of Justice of Sao Paulo
Case no.PartiesCourtFiledDurationOutcome
22-1562 E-ONE, Inc v. Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. Fed. Cir. 22 Mar 2022 540 d Voluntary dismissal
2:20-cv-01520 Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. v. Spartan Fire, LLC D. Nev. 17 Aug 2020 1 d Case Transferred
3:20-cv-00471 Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. v. Spartan Fire, LLC D. Nev. 17 Aug 2020 46 d Case Transferred
2020-1272 United Fire Protection Corp. v. Engineered Corrosion Solutions, LLC Fed. Cir. 19 Dec 2019 152 d Closed
2019-1276 Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. v. E-ONE, Inc Fed. Cir. 7 Dec 2018 167 d Closed
8:18-cv-00976 Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. v. REV Group, Inc. M.D. Fla. 20 Apr 2018 12 d Case Transferred
2018-1685 Engineered Corrosion Solutions, LLC v. South-Tek Systems, LLC Fed. Cir. 15 Mar 2018 420 d Closed
1:18-cv-00284 Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. v. REV Group, Inc. E.D. Wis. 23 Feb 2018 56 d Case Transferred
2017-2297 South-Tek Systems, LLC v. Engineered Corrosion Solutions, LLC Fed. Cir. 13 Jul 2017 434 d Closed
2:16-cv-00178 ESIP Series 1, LLC v. Shenzhen Jing Xin Tai Houseware D. Utah 4 Mar 2016 763 d Other
4:16-cv-00096 Engineered Corrosion Solutions, LLC v. South-Tek Systems, LLC E.D. Mo. 25 Jan 2016 358 d Stayed
2:15-cv-00857 ESIP Series 1, LLC v. Floracopeia D. Utah 4 Dec 2015 67 d Voluntary dismissal
2:15-cv-00807 ESIP Series 1, LLC v. Unitrex D. Utah 17 Nov 2015 223 d Other
2016-1056 Williams-Pyro, Inc. v. Warren Watts Technology, LLC Fed. Cir. 9 Oct 2015 189 d Closed
4:12-cv-00546 Williams-Pyro, Inc. v. Warren Watts Technology, LLC N.D. Tex. 3 Aug 2012 1133 d Other
1:09-cv-04234 Firepass IP Holdings, Inc. v. Airbus Americas, Inc. E.D.N.Y. 1 Oct 2009 3973 d Voluntary dismissal
1005390-67.2016.8.26.0132 Luis Marcelo Biancini Casal Garcia, Paulo Eduardo Biancini Casal Garcia and Flávio Henrique Biancini Casal Garcia v. Julio Cesar Rocha, Rafael Lourenço Leivas, Sudeste Parts Ferragens and Ferramentas Ltda Epp Court of Justice of Sao Paulo – Appeal Granted In Part
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases classified under Fire-fighting. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Where the claim space is crowded

Which patents are asserted most in this field, and which branches are still open.

Map this field
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.