Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Tinnus Enterprises, LLC et al v. Telebrands Corporation
Case Number:
6:16-cv-00033
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
- Boies Schiller
- Cooper & Dunham
- Darrow Mustafa
- Dunlap Bennett
- Etheridge Law Group
- Ferguson Braswell
- Findlay Craft
- Flachsbart & Greenspoon
- Greenberg Traurig
- Irell & Manella
- Jackson Walker LLP
- Jones Day
- Latham & Watkins
- Spencer Fane
- Steckler Wayne
- Thompson Hine
- Wolf Greenfield
Companies
- Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.
- Fry's Electronics
- Kohl's Corp.
- The Kroger Co.
- Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc.
- Walmart Inc.
Sectors & Industries:
-
March 27, 2019
Water Balloon Patent Win Upped To $24.5M Plus Atty Fees
A Texas federal judge doubled a jury award to $24.5 million and tacked on $4.75 million in attorney fees and expenses for a toy company that won a case against Telebrands Corp. for infringing two patents on a water balloon device, finding the infringer's misconduct in the case wasted court resources.
-
November 22, 2017
Jury Awards Toy Co. $10.3M In Profits For Water Balloon IP
A Texas federal jury on Tuesday awarded $10.25 million in lost profits to a toy company over two patents for a relatively new water balloon-filling device, copycats of which were allegedly sold by Telebrands Corp. at Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. and other retailers — just weeks before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is set to hold its own trial over the two patents.
-
November 02, 2017
'As Seen On TV' Seller Trims Patent Suit Over Balloon Toy
A Texas federal judge has agreed to toss a retailer's bid for certain lost profits in a suit alleging that Telebrands Corp. infringed patents covering a water balloon toy, finding that the retailer couldn't show the kind of licensing rights necessary to back those claims.
-
August 17, 2017
No Inequitable Conduct In Toy IP Suit, Judge Says
An Eastern District of Texas judge said two Bunch-O-Balloons patents should not be found unenforceable for inequitable conduct, deciding that failure to provide a patent examiner with a copy of a relevant Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision was not a basis for punishment.