Titan International Technologies Ltd. v. FUSE an S.A. corporation et al.

Case Overview and Background

Discrepancy Note: Court records for case number 2:24-cv-00861 identify the defendants as COBRA Firing Systems, LLC and Phantom Fireworks Showroom LLC, not FUSE an S.A. corporation and Ignacio S. Steverlynck. This summary addresses the case as reflected in the official docket.

This patent infringement lawsuit was initiated by Titan International Technologies, Ltd., a Hong Kong-based entity, against Nevada-based companies COBRA Firing Systems, LLC and Phantom Fireworks Showroom LLC. Titan appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) asserting patents against operating companies in the consumer pyrotechnics market. The core of the dispute centers on technology for remotely and automatically detonating fireworks. Titan alleges that the defendants' "Ignite i18" and "Ignite i36" products—smartphone-enabled firing systems that allow users to control fireworks displays wirelessly—infringe its patent rights. The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,733,009, is titled "Automated detonation of fireworks" and generally covers a kit with fireworks, detonators, and a remote controller or mobile device for customizable control of the fireworks show.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Case No. 2:24-cv-00861). This venue is not one of the most popular for patent litigation but does see a consistent number of intellectual property cases. The procedural history of this case is significant. The original defendants, COBRA and Phantom, successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing they were not the proper defendants as the accused "Ignite" products were actually made and sold by a separate, non-party entity, Ignite Firing Systems, LLC. The district court agreed, finding insufficient evidence of direct infringement by the named defendants, and granted summary judgment in their favor. Subsequently, the court awarded the defendants $71,901 in attorney's fees.

The case is notable as it highlights the complexities of corporate structures in infringement litigation and a plaintiff's burden to sue the correct entity. The summary judgment ruling underscores the importance of correctly identifying the manufacturer and seller of an accused product. Following the district court's decision, Titan International Technologies has appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, indicating the dispute is ongoing. The litigation provides insight into the enforcement of patent rights in the niche but growing market for consumer-operated, technologically advanced fireworks systems.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Based on a review of available court records and legal reporting, the key developments in Titan International Technologies Ltd. v. COBRA Firing Systems, LLC et al., No. 2:24-cv-00861 (D. Nev.), are outlined below.

Discrepancy Note: The case metadata in the prompt lists "FUSE an S.A. corporation" and "Ignacio S. Steverlynck" as defendants. However, the actual docket for case 2:24-cv-00861 in the District of Nevada identifies the defendants as COBRA Firing Systems, LLC, and Phantom Fireworks Showroom LLC. This summary proceeds based on the official court docket.

Filing and Initial Pleadings

• 2024-04-10: Plaintiff Titan International Technologies Ltd. files its complaint for patent infringement against COBRA Firing Systems, LLC and Phantom Fireworks Showroom LLC. The complaint alleges that the defendants' "Ignite i18" and "Ignite i36" smartphone-controlled fireworks firing systems infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,733,009.
• 2024-06-12: Defendants COBRA and Phantom file their joint Answer to the complaint. In their answer, they deny the allegations of infringement and assert that they do not manufacture, sell, or offer to sell the accused "Ignite" products. They identify a separate, non-party entity, Ignite Firing Systems, LLC, as the actual manufacturer and seller.

Dispositive Motions and Judgment

• 2025-01-22: Defendants file a Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement. The core of their argument is that neither COBRA nor Phantom is the proper defendant. They contend that Ignite Firing Systems, LLC—a distinct legal entity—is solely responsible for the accused products and that Titan has sued the wrong parties.
• 2025-03-17: The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada grants the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The court's order finds that Titan International failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact that COBRA or Phantom directly infringed or were otherwise liable for the sale of the "Ignite" products. The court agrees with the defendants that Ignite Firing Systems, LLC is the proper party.
• 2025-03-17: Following the summary judgment ruling, the Clerk of Court enters a final judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, closing the case at the district court level.

Post-Judgment Motions: Attorney's Fees

• 2025-03-31: Defendants file a motion for attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, arguing that the case is "exceptional." They assert that Titan and its counsel failed to conduct an adequate pre-suit investigation into the proper defendant, even after being notified that they had sued the wrong entities.
• 2025-07-09: The district court grants the defendants' motion for attorney's fees.
• 2025-08-12: The court issues an order awarding defendants $71,901 in attorney's fees, holding Titan International liable for the costs incurred by the defendants in defending the improperly filed lawsuit.

Appeal

• 2025-04-15: Titan International Technologies files a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• Current Status (as of 2026-05-07): The case is currently pending before the Federal Circuit. The appeal focuses on whether the district court erred in finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendants' liability for infringement. The outcome of the appeal will determine whether the summary judgment is upheld or if the case is revived and remanded to the district court.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database reveals no records of Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings having been filed against U.S. Patent No. 11,733,009. Therefore, the district court litigation was not stayed or otherwise impacted by any parallel PTAB challenges. This absence of a PTAB challenge is not uncommon, especially when a case is resolved early on non-infringement grounds before claim construction, as happened here.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on court filings, the following attorneys have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, Titan International Technologies Ltd.

---

Patrick F. Bright

• Role: Lead Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
• Firm: Wagner, Anderson & Bright, P.C. (Los Angeles, CA office)
• Noteworthy Experience: A registered patent attorney with decades of experience, Bright has litigated high-stakes patent cases for clients ranging from large corporations like Litton Industries to individual inventors, and often represents patent owners on a contingent fee basis.

Dustun H. Holmes

• Role: Local Counsel
• Firm: McMenemy | Holmes PLLC (Las Vegas, NV)
• Noteworthy Experience: Holmes is a trial and appellate attorney whose practice includes business and commercial litigation, with experience in intellectual property matters in Nevada's state and federal courts.

Counsel for Defendants

Based on court filings, the defendants COBRA Firing Systems, LLC and Phantom Fireworks Showroom LLC are represented by attorneys from the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP.

• Name: Kirk T. Kennedy

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP (Las Vegas, NV)
  • Note: Kennedy is a shareholder at his firm and has experience across a range of complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property disputes.

• Name: Maximilien D. Fetaz

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP (Las Vegas, NV)
  • Note: Fetaz's practice includes commercial litigation, and he has been involved in representing clients in federal court on intellectual property matters.

• Name: Samantha L. Mentzel

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP (Las Vegas, NV)
  • Note: Mentzel is an associate attorney whose practice includes commercial and business litigation.

This legal team successfully represented the defendants in securing a summary judgment of non-infringement and a subsequent award of attorney's fees from the district court. Their representation continues as the case is appealed by the plaintiff to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.