4C’s Spray Equipment Rental v. Rooftop Equipment — Voluntarily Dismissed, USPTO Reexamination Pending
4C’s Spray Equipment Rental, LLC filed suit against Rooftop Equipment, Inc. in the Western District of Pennsylvania asserting infringement of two spray applicator patents covering the Premium VManifold Applicator. The case was voluntarily dismissed after just 96 days, with a notable damages-interest carve-out tied to ongoing USPTO reexamination of both asserted patents.
Spray applicator patent dispute ends in voluntary dismissal amid USPTO reexam
On 23 April 2025, 4C’s Spray Equipment Rental, LLC filed an infringement action against Rooftop Equipment, Inc. before Judge William S. Stickman in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The complaint asserted two patents — US11559820B1 and US11992858B1 — directed at spray manifold applicator technology embodied in the Premium VManifold Applicator product. Barley Snyder, LLC represented the plaintiff; Clark Hill PLC and Dority & Manning PA represented the defendant.
The case closed on 28 July 2025 via voluntary dismissal, just 96 days after filing. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, leaving the question of re-filing open. Critically, the parties entered a stipulation providing that any damages ultimately found against Rooftop would not accrue pre-judgment interest during the window between the dismissal and the date the USPTO issues reexamination certificates for both asserted patents — a structurally significant concession that bridges the gap between the litigation timeline and the reexam outcome.
The 96-day duration and the interest-accrual carve-out together suggest the parties agreed to pause litigation pending the USPTO’s review of patent validity, a common risk-management strategy when reexamination is likely to reshape the claim landscape. What drove the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss rather than stay the case remains unknown from the public record, as do the commercial terms of any side agreement. The reexamination outcome will likely determine whether and on what claims any future action could proceed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 96 days
96 days — resolved well below the typical 2–3 year district court patent trial average
Voluntarily dismissed: what the stipulated carve-out means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal with a damages-interest stipulation
A voluntary dismissal removes the active case from the court’s docket. Unusually here, the parties attached a stipulation: if Rooftop is later found liable, pre-judgment interest will not accrue during the period between dismissal and issuance of USPTO reexamination certificates for both patents. This is a hybrid mechanism — effectively suspending the economic clock tied to damages rather than the litigation itself.
Stipulated interest carve-outWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
Voluntary dismissals can be with prejudice (plaintiff cannot re-file the same claims) or without prejudice (plaintiff may re-file). The available public record does not specify which applies here. This distinction matters enormously: a without-prejudice dismissal would allow 4C’s to re-assert these patents after the reexamination certificates issue, potentially with a narrowed but validated claim set. Stakeholders should not assume either outcome without further verification.
Prejudice status unconfirmedUSPTO reexam of both patents creates continuing uncertainty for Rooftop
Rooftop cannot treat this dismissal as a final resolution while USPTO reexamination of US11559820B1 and US11992858B1 remains pending. The stipulation expressly contemplates future liability findings. If the patents emerge from reexam with confirmed or amended claims, 4C’s retains a clear path to resume enforcement. Rooftop’s commercial exposure to the Premium VManifold Applicator product line is not extinguished by this dismissal alone.
Reexam risk remains liveSpray applicator IP landscape remains unsettled post-dismissal
For competitors, distributors, and OEM manufacturers operating in the spray manifold applicator space, this case signals active patent enforcement around the Premium VManifold Applicator technology. The reexamination proceedings will define which claims survive and in what form, directly affecting freedom-to-operate for any party designing or sourcing similar equipment. The interest-accrual structure in the stipulation suggests both sides expect the dispute to continue in some form.
Sector-wide FTO exposureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | 4C’S SPRAY EQUIPMENT RENTAL, LLC | Company | Spray equipment rental company — holder of US11559820B1 and US11992858B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT, INC. | Company | Rooftop Equipment, Inc. — spray equipment manufacturer and distributorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joshua L. Schwartz | Attorney | Counsel for 4C’S SPRAY EQUIPMENT RENTAL, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin A. Tomevi | Attorney | Counsel for 4C’S SPRAY EQUIPMENT RENTAL, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Barley Snyder, LLC | Law Firm | Representing 4C’S SPRAY EQUIPMENT RENTAL, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason Alan Pittman | Attorney | Counsel for ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Vincent M. Roskovensky | Attorney | Counsel for ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Clark Hill PLC | Law Firm | Representing ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dority & Manning PA | Law Firm | Representing ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge William S. Stickman | Judge | Pennsylvania Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text does not record a merits finding — it is a stipulation governing the economic consequences of a potential future liability determination. The interest-accrual carve-out is a forward-looking mechanism: it protects Rooftop from compounding pre-judgment interest during the USPTO reexamination window while preserving 4C’s right to recover damages on confirmed claims post-certificate. The phrasing ‘to the extent Rooftop may later be found liable’ confirms no infringement determination was reached in this proceeding and that the underlying dispute is structurally preserved pending the reexamination outcome.
US11559820B1 & US11992858B1 — spray manifold applicator technology
US11559820B1 (application no. US16/918340) and US11992858B1 (application no. US18/099753) cover spray manifold applicator technology associated with the Premium VManifold Applicator product. Both patents are granted US utility patents held by 4C’s Spray Equipment Rental, LLC. The two applications — one a likely continuation or follow-on to the other based on the sequential application numbers — together suggest a portfolio strategy designed to maintain layered claim coverage across the spray applicator technology domain.
For the spray and roofing equipment sector, two co-pending utility patents directed at a specific named applicator product represent meaningful IP infrastructure. Competitors manufacturing or distributing functionally similar spray manifold equipment face non-trivial infringement exposure until the USPTO reexamination process resolves the validity and precise scope of both patents. The fact that both patents are currently under reexamination adds volatility to any FTO analysis but does not eliminate the risk — claims confirmed through reexam carry enhanced presumptive validity.
Should you run an FTO against US11559820B1 and US11992858B1?
Any manufacturer, distributor, or rental company operating in the spray manifold or rooftop applicator equipment space should treat these two patents as active enforcement risks. 4C’s has demonstrated willingness to litigate in federal court, and the voluntary dismissal was expressly contingent on reexamination outcomes — not a concession of non-infringement. Companies designing, sourcing, or commercialising products functionally similar to the Premium VManifold Applicator should commission an FTO analysis before the reexamination certificates issue and lock in the surviving claim scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim boundaries of US11559820B1 and US11992858B1 against your product specifications, identify prior art relevant to ongoing reexamination proceedings, and flag continuation applications that could extend coverage. With USPTO reexamination status actively evolving, real-time patent monitoring through Eureka ensures your legal and R&D teams are alerted the moment claim amendments or certificate issuances change your risk profile.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11559820B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar spray equipment patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving spray applicator and rooftop equipment technology filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania and related venues.
What this case signals for the spray equipment IP landscape
A 96-day dismissal tied to USPTO reexam suggests a calculated pause, not a resolution. Here is what industry participants should note.
Reexamination-linked dismissals are a litigation pause, not an endpoint
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses while USPTO reexamination is pending — and stipulates to a damages-interest carve-out — it typically signals an expectation of re-filing post-reexam. Competitors and supply chain partners in the spray applicator space should treat this case as deferred rather than resolved and monitor the reexamination status of both US11559820B1 and US11992858B1 closely.
Two co-pending patents increase enforcement resilience for 4C’s
Asserting two related patents simultaneously — US11559820B1 and US11992858B1 — is a deliberate portfolio strategy that hedges against claim invalidation in reexamination. Even if one patent is substantially narrowed, the second may provide independent infringement hooks. Rooftop and similarly positioned defendants should model validity risk across both patent families, not just the primary assertion.
4C’S v ROOFTOP — key questions answered
4C’s Spray Equipment Rental, LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Rooftop Equipment, Inc. in the Western District of Pennsylvania on 23 April 2025, asserting US11559820B1 and US11992858B1. The case was voluntarily dismissed on 28 July 2025 after 96 days, with a stipulation suspending pre-judgment interest accrual on any future damages during the pending USPTO reexamination of both patents.
The public record records a voluntary dismissal but does not specify whether it was with or without prejudice. This is a legally significant distinction: a without-prejudice dismissal would permit 4C’s to re-file after USPTO reexamination certificates issue. Parties and competitors should not assume either outcome without reviewing the underlying dismissal order directly.
US11559820B1 (application US16/918340) and US11992858B1 (application US18/099753) are US utility patents held by 4C’s Spray Equipment Rental, LLC covering spray manifold applicator technology associated with the Premium VManifold Applicator product. Both patents are currently under USPTO reexamination, the outcome of which will determine the enforceable scope of each patent going forward.
The stipulation provides that if Rooftop Equipment is later found liable for infringement of either asserted patent, pre-judgment interest on resulting damages will not accrue during the period between the dismissal and the issuance of USPTO reexamination certificates for both patents. This effectively pauses the economic cost of delay for Rooftop while USPTO proceedings are active, without extinguishing 4C’s infringement claims.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal does not represent a validity or non-infringement finding. 4C’s retains potential infringement claims and has already demonstrated enforcement intent. Any company manufacturing, distributing, or renting functionally similar spray manifold applicator products should conduct an FTO analysis against US11559820B1 and US11992858B1 and monitor the USPTO reexamination status, as confirmed claims carry heightened presumptive validity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.