Presses (General) Patent litigation record

Technology 9 cases

9 cases on record in Presses (General). Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Map this field in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

9 cases on record

Cases on record
9
Classification
B30B9/00 · B30B9/30 · B30B15/14 · B65F1/14 · B65F1/16 · F03G6/00 · H01L31/058 · H02J7/35 · B30B7/04 · B65D85/804 · B65D79/02 · B65D85/34 · B65D77/04 · A23L2/04 · A23N1/02 · A23N1/00 · B65D83/00 · B30B9/04 · A47J19/06 · A47J19/02 · B30B9/20
Courts involved
S.D. Tex. · C.D. Cal. · S.D. Cal. · N.D. Cal. · N.D. Ill.
Case no.PartiesCourtFiledDurationOutcome
4:19-cv-00232 Oakley, Inc. v. City Eyewear S.D. Tex. 22 Jan 2019 632 d Voluntary dismissal
8:18-cv-00403 Oakley, Inc. v. Asia Pacific Trading Co., Inc. C.D. Cal. 13 Mar 2018 6 d Voluntary dismissal
8:18-cv-00394 Oakley, Inc. v. SSAmeco, Inc. C.D. Cal. 12 Mar 2018 70 d Voluntary dismissal
3:17-cv-01693 Oakley, Inc. v. Frontier Fashion, Inc. S.D. Cal. 22 Aug 2017 135 d Likely Settlement
2:17-cv-05604 BigBelly Solar, Inc. v. Ecube Labs, Co., Ltd. C.D. Cal. 28 Jul 2017 270 d Likely Settlement
5:17-cv-01921 Juicero, Inc. v. iTaste Co. N.D. Cal. 6 Apr 2017 1187 d Voluntary dismissal
1:15-cv-11309 One Plus, Corp. v. Marathon Equipment Company N.D. Ill. 16 Dec 2015 149 d Voluntary dismissal
1:15-cv-11159 One Plus, Corp. v. Harmony Enterprises, Inc. N.D. Ill. 11 Dec 2015 172 d Voluntary dismissal
3:15-cv-01398 Oakley, Inc. v. 7-Eleven, Inc. S.D. Cal. 25 Jun 2015 88 d Voluntary dismissal
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases classified under Presses (General). 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.