Titan International Technologies, LTD v. COBRA Firing Systems, LLC et al.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement suit involves players in the consumer and professional pyrotechnics markets. The plaintiff is Titan International Technologies, LTD, a Hong Kong-based entity. While some public information points to a Hong Kong company named Titan International Ltd. that acts as a distributor for various industrial and consumer products, it is not definitively clear if this is the same entity or whether the plaintiff is an operating company or a non-practicing entity. The defendants are COBRA Firing Systems, LLC, a U.S.-based leader in professional and enthusiast wireless fireworks firing systems, and Phantom Fireworks Showroom LLC, one of the largest consumer fireworks retailers in the United States. The lawsuit centers on the "Ignite i18" and "Ignite i36," which are consumer-focused systems that allow users to control fireworks displays from a smartphone or tablet.

The core of the dispute involves U.S. Patent No. 11,709,037, titled "System and method for automating a fireworks display." The patent generally describes a system for remotely and automatically detonating fireworks using a mobile electronic device that communicates with firing modules. Titan alleged that the Ignite products, which are marketed as being from "the team who brought you COBRA," infringed this patent. A critical issue in the district court was the corporate separation between the defendants and a third party, Ignite Firing Systems, LLC, which defendants claimed is the actual manufacturer and seller of the accused products. This defense proved successful at the district court level.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (2:24-cv-00861), a venue with its own local patent rules designed to streamline litigation proceedings. The matter was assigned to Judge Cristina D. Silva. On November 21, 2024, the court granted summary judgment of non-infringement for the defendants, finding that Titan had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that COBRA or Phantom directly sold or offered to sell the accused Ignite products. The case is notable for its focus on the complexities of corporate structure in infringement analysis and involves well-known brands in the pyrotechnics industry. The plaintiff has since appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Here is a chronological list of the key legal developments in the patent infringement litigation between Titan International Technologies and COBRA Firing Systems.

2024-05-07: Complaint Filed
Titan International Technologies, LTD ("Titan") filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against COBRA Firing Systems, LLC ("COBRA") and Phantom Fireworks Showroom LLC ("Phantom"). The case was assigned case number 2:24-cv-00861 and Judge Cristina D. Silva. The complaint alleged that the defendants' "Ignite i18" and "Ignite i36" smartphone-enabled fireworks firing systems infringed on Titan's U.S. Patent No. 11,709,037.

Initial Pleadings and Motions
Following the complaint, the defendants filed both a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. While the exact filing dates are not available in public web sources, these motions were fully briefed by the parties. The core of the defendants' argument was a significant issue of corporate separation. They contended that neither COBRA nor Phantom manufactured, sold, or offered to sell the accused "Ignite" products. Instead, they argued that a legally distinct entity, Ignite Firing Systems, LLC (which was not named as a defendant in the suit), was the responsible party.

2024-11-21: Summary Judgment Granted and Case Terminated
Judge Silva granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that Titan had failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that COBRA or Phantom had directly infringed the patent. The plaintiff's evidence, which reportedly included images of COBRA-branded accessories and website screenshots, was deemed insufficient to pierce the corporate veil or otherwise hold the named defendants liable for the sales of the Ignite products. In light of the ruling on summary judgment, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. The clerk entered judgment for the defendants, and the district court case was terminated.

Post-Judgment Appeal
Following the adverse summary judgment ruling, Titan International Technologies filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While the specific date of the notice of appeal is not readily available through public web searches, the appeal was docketed. This action moved the case from the trial court to the appellate court for review of the district court's decision.

2026-05-07 (Current Status): On Appeal
As of today's date, the case remains on appeal at the Federal Circuit. The appeal challenges the District of Nevada's grant of summary judgment.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings
A thorough search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records and other patent litigation databases did not reveal any Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings filed by COBRA, Phantom, or any related entity challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,037. Therefore, there is no indication that parallel PTAB litigation has had any effect on this case.

Counsel for Plaintiff Titan International Technologies, LTD

The legal team for the plaintiff, Titan International Technologies, LTD, is comprised of lead counsel from a California-based intellectual property firm and local counsel from a Las Vegas litigation boutique.

---

Patrick Bright | Lead Counsel

• Firm: Wagner, Anderson & Bright, PC (Los Angeles, CA)
• Note: A veteran patent attorney with over 40 years of experience, Mr. Bright was admitted pro hac vice to handle this case. His career has focused on patent prosecution and complex patent litigation, and he was notably co-counsel in a case against Sega that resulted in a $44 million payment and second-chair in the Litton v. Honeywell case that yielded a $1.2 billion jury verdict.

Dustun H. Holmes | Local Counsel

• Firm: McMenemy Holmes PLLC (Las Vegas, NV)
• Note: Mr. Holmes is a founding partner of his firm and has represented clients in a variety of high-stakes civil and commercial litigation in both state and federal courts, including matters involving intellectual property. He is admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Ian M. McMenemy | Local Counsel

• Firm: McMenemy Holmes PLLC (Las Vegas, NV)
• Note: A founding partner of the firm alongside Mr. Holmes, his practice primarily focuses on personal injury and insurance bad faith litigation, though the firm handles a broader range of civil and commercial disputes. He has been recognized as a "Rising Star" by Super Lawyers from 2018 to 2026.

Counsel for Defendants COBRA Firing Systems, LLC and Phantom Fireworks Showroom LLC

The defense for COBRA Firing Systems and Phantom Fireworks is led by attorneys from the intellectual property boutique Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C., with local representation from a prominent Nevada law firm.

---

Michael J. Thomas | Lead Counsel

• Firm: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Frisco, TX)
• Note: Thomas is a principal at his firm and has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property litigation, with a focus on patent, trademark, and trade dress disputes in federal courts nationwide.

Joseph R. Drouin | Of Counsel

• Firm: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Frisco, TX)
• Note: Drouin is a principal in the firm's litigation practice group, concentrating on patent and trademark infringement litigation across a wide range of technologies.

James E. Harper | Local Counsel

• Firm: Fennemore Craig, P.C. (Las Vegas, NV)
• Note: Harper is a director at his firm and has served as local counsel in numerous significant patent cases in the District of Nevada, including those involving complex technologies and major corporate litigants.