The variable speed controllers can withstand up to 15 amps. Most of your standard home light dimmers are only two-prong and can withstand about 4amps of power. Wing Nut (QTY 4) - We use these instead of any type of lock-nut so that you can adjust your mounts for added creativity.ĭimmer (QTY 1) - You can get a couple different versions, but honestly the best dimmer you can get is a variable speed control most often used for commercial fans. Also, they allow for easier adjustment with the wing-nut below. Sealing Washer (QTY 4) - These unique washers have a composite material on their flush side that will “catch” a screw as you thread it through making assembly easier. Also, you can literally screw these into the wall and mount lights as wellġ/8” or M4 flat-head screws (QTY 4) - The big thing here is to make sure that screw is long enough and can fit through the hold in the T8 or T-12 clip T8 or T12 LED Mounting Clip (QTY 4) - These are the actual clips that will secure your LED tubes into the mount. Our Quasar Science Mount Buildįor each mount you make you’ll need the following:īaby Pin Wall Plate (QTY 1) - You have a few different options here, but we recommend going with at least a six-inch straight baby pin mount. Also, it’s dirt cheap compared to official solutions and should help fill the void while more grip-tool companies bring out their professional solutions. Our DIY rig is simple, flexible, and integrates into most of your production workflows seamlessly. However, with their newness the accessory side of the LED tube business hasn’t matured, at least in a competitive manner. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. The plaintiff also requested an award of damages, including enhanced damages with pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested to adjudicate that Defendants have directly and contributorily infringed and also induced the infringement of Patents-in-suit, and to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from committing any further acts of infringement. Plaintiff listed six claims for relief from alleged infringement of the patents-in-suit. Plaintiff further alleged, “Upon information and belief, Quasar/Vitec rent and/or sell, and have rented and/or sold, the Accused Products to Cinelease/Herc, Warner Bros., Sony, and Fox (and potentially others), and Cinelease/Herc, Warner Bros., Sony, and Fox lease and/or re-sell, and/or have leased and/or re-sold, the Accused Products to various companies, photography, production companies, and/or movie studios, which then use the Accused Products in precisely the manner and configuration as covered by the Colt patents.” The plaintiff then alleged, “Colt has not licensed or otherwise authorized any of Defendants (or their dealers, customers, affiliates, or the like) to make, use, sell, lease, offer to lease, or offer to sell the Accused Products or any systems that fall within the scope of any of the claims of the Colt patents.” In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged, “Upon close inspection of the Accused Products, along with the content and images provided by Quasar through its website advertising, it is evident that the Accused Products infringe the Colt patents.” 9,719,642 (“the ‘642 patent”) entitled “Tube Light with Improved LED Array” 9,845,924 (“the ‘924 patent”) entitled “Tube Light with Improved LED Array” 10,197,224 (“the ‘224 patent”) entitled “Multicolored Tube Light with Improved LED Array” 10,411,582 (“the ‘582 patent”) entitled “Tube Light with Improved LED Array” 10,566,895 (“the ‘895 patent”) entitled “Tube Light with Improved LED Array” and 10,718,473 (“the ‘473 patent”) entitled “Tube Light with Improved LED Array” (collectively, the “Colt patents” or “Patents-in-Suit”). Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of U.S. This case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, with Judge Colm F. (“Sony”), and others (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with damages for alleged willful infringement of U.S. (“Cinelease”), Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. (“Vitec”), Herc Entertainment Services LLC (“Herc”), Cinelease, Inc. Farnan of Farnan LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Quasar Science LLC (“Quasar”), Vitec Production Solutions Inc. d/b/a Colt LED (“Colt” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Brian E. On February 17, 2022, Colt International Clothing, Inc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |