FSU Research Foundation vs. SentiMetal Journey: Linear Motor Patent Case Ends in Dismissal
Que souhaitez-vous faire ensuite ?
Choisissez votre parcours en fonction de vos besoins actuels :
📋 Résumé de l'affaire
| Nom de l'affaire | FSU Research Foundation Inc. v. SentiMetal Journey LLC |
| Numéro de dossier | 4:22-cv-00430 (N.D. Fla.) |
| Tribunal | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida |
| Durée | Dec 2022 – Apr 2024 486 days |
| Résultat | Rejeté avec préjudice |
| Brevets en cause | |
| Produits incriminés | SentiMetal Journey’s Highly Efficient Linear Motor Products |
Aperçu du dossier
Les parties
⚖️ Demandeur
The technology commercialization arm of Florida State University, managing the university’s intellectual property portfolio and licensing agreements.
🛡️ Défendeur
A Florida-based commercial entity involved in highly efficient linear motor products, placing it within FSURF’s enforcement scope.
Brevets en cause
This case centered on two granted U.S. patents covering highly efficient linear motor technology, a field drawing increasing commercial and defense-sector attention. Linear motors convert electrical energy directly into linear mechanical motion, deployed in applications including transportation systems, manufacturing automation, and aerospace actuators.
- • U.S. Patent No. 10,601,293 B2 — covering innovations in highly efficient linear motor design and architecture
- • U.S. Patent No. 10,774,696 B2 — covering related linear motor technology, likely addressing complementary system components or operational methods
Developing a Linear Motor Product?
Check if your technology might infringe these or related patents before launch.
Le verdict et l'analyse juridique
Résultat
The case terminated via stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), effective without court order upon filing. This procedural designation means FSURF cannot re-file the same claims against SentiMetal Journey for the same conduct. No damages award, royalty determination, or injunctive relief was publicly entered, suggesting a private resolution such as a licensing agreement or design-around was reached.
Signification juridique
For linear motor patent infringement litigation, this case reinforces a consistent pattern: university research foundation patent assertions frequently resolve through private agreement before trial. The two patents involved represent substantive R&D investment by FSU researchers, and their survival through litigation without invalidity findings preserves their future licensing utility. The case also affirms that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissals under *Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC*, 677 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2012) remain the preferred resolution vehicle in the Eleventh Circuit when both parties seek a clean exit without judicial merits determination.
Analyse de la liberté d'exploitation (FTO)
This case highlights critical IP risks in linear motor technology development. Choose your next step:
📋 Comprendre l'impact de cette affaire
Découvrez les risques et les implications spécifiques liés à ce litige.
- View all related patents in the linear motor technology space
- See which companies are most active in linear motor patents
- Understand claim construction patterns relevant to these patents
🔍 Vérifier les risques liés à mon produit
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own linear motor technology or product.
- Saisissez la description de votre produit ou ses caractéristiques techniques.
- L'IA identifie les brevets susceptibles de constituer un obstacle
- Obtenir un rapport d'évaluation des risques exploitable
Zone à haut risque
Highly efficient linear motor designs
2 Active Patents
Key patents involved in this case
Options de contournement
C'est possible moyennant une analyse minutieuse des demandes
✅ Points clés à retenir
Stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) self-execute in the Eleventh Circuit per *Anago* — no court order required.
Rechercher la jurisprudence connexe →University patent assertions in technical fields increasingly mirror commercial NPE litigation in sophistication and counsel quality.
Explorer les précédents →Both patents (US10601293B2; US10774696B2) survive without invalidity cloud — FSURF retains full enforcement options against other parties.
View patent legal status →Foire aux questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 10,601,293 B2 (Application No. 16/370,576) and U.S. Patent No. 10,774,696 B2 (Application No. 15/947,131), both covering highly efficient linear motor technology.
The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). No court order was required. Specific settlement terms were not publicly disclosed, but such dismissals often reflect private licensing agreements or product design-arounds.
The patents remain valid and enforceable. Companies in the linear motor space should treat both patents (US10601293B2 and US10774696B2) as active licensing and enforcement risks and conduct freedom-to-operate analysis accordingly. This also underscores that university technology transfer offices are active in monetizing their IP.
Prêt à renforcer votre stratégie en matière de brevets ?
Rejoignez plus de 18 000 professionnels de la propriété intellectuelle qui utilisent PatSnap Eureka pour effectuer des recherches d'antériorité, rédiger des brevets et analyser le paysage concurrentiel avec une précision optimisée par l'IA.
Références
- U.S. Patent No. 10,601,293 B2 – Google Patents
- U.S. Patent No. 10,774,696 B2 – Google Patents
- PACER Case Lookup for 4:22-cv-00430
- Eleventh Circuit Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC Decision
- PatSnap — Solutions de veille en matière de propriété intellectuelle pour les cabinets d'avocats
Cet article est publié à titre purement informatif et ne constitue en aucun cas un avis juridique. Toutes les informations relatives aux affaires sont tirées de dossiers judiciaires accessibles au public. Pour en savoir plus sur les fonctionnalités de la plateforme, rendez-vous sur PatSnap.