A.B.I. Safety v. Epiroc AB: Voluntary Dismissal After 553 Days
A.B.I. Safety, LLC brought a patent infringement claim against Epiroc AB and its U.S. affiliates in Idaho federal court, asserting US10361533B2 across mining and infrastructure equipment. After 553 days of litigation, A.B.I. Safety elected to voluntarily dismiss the case under Rule 41(a)(1) — with the public record silent on whether prejudice was attached.
Patent Infringement Action in Mining Equipment Ends Without Merits Ruling
A.B.I. Safety, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company and holder of US10361533B2, filed suit in the District of Idaho on 16 May 2024 against Epiroc AB — the Swedish mining and infrastructure equipment group — along with three U.S. Epiroc affiliates: Epiroc Drilling Solutions, LLC, Epiroc Drilling Tools, LLC, and Epiroc USA, LLC. The complaint alleged patent infringement relating to mining and infrastructure equipment technology covered by the asserted patent. Notably, two Epiroc affiliates appear on both the plaintiff and defendant sides, suggesting a complex corporate and licensing relationship among the parties.
On 20 November 2025, after 553 days of litigation, A.B.I. Safety’s counsel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The dismissal notice states the case is being dismissed ‘without prejudice,’ meaning — on the face of the filing — A.B.I. Safety could theoretically refile the infringement claim. However, Rule 41 two-dismissal rules and any applicable statutes of limitation may constrain that optionality in practice. No merits determination was reached by the court.
A voluntary dismissal after nearly 18 months of litigation is notable. Cases that settle or resolve early typically exit within 12 months; a dismissal at this stage suggests substantive litigation activity — including likely discovery — occurred before A.B.I. Safety withdrew. What drove the decision to dismiss remains unknown from the public record: it may reflect a negotiated resolution, an assessment of claim strength, or commercial factors unrelated to the merits. The absence of any recorded costs award is consistent with a voluntary dismissal without a court order.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 553 days
553 days — longer than the median voluntary dismissal timeline in district court patent cases
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1) means for each party
Rule 41(a)(1): plaintiff-initiated exit, no court order required
A voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to dismiss its own action by filing a notice — without court approval — before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal notice here invokes this procedural right. Critically, the public record states ‘without prejudice,’ but the distinction between with and without prejudice carries significant downstream consequences for enforceability of the patent against the same defendants.
Rule 41(a)(1) noticePublic record states ‘without prejudice’ — but what does that mean here?
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ nominally preserves A.B.I. Safety’s right to refile. However, Rule 41’s ‘two-dismissal rule’ means a second voluntary dismissal of the same claim against the same defendant operates as a dismissal with prejudice. Any applicable patent statute of limitations also constrains refiling windows. The public docket does not disclose whether any side agreement between the parties modifies these defaults — leaving the true practical finality of this dismissal ambiguous from the public record alone.
Without prejudice — refiling risk remainsEpiroc exits without an invalidity or non-infringement ruling
For Epiroc AB and its affiliates, the voluntary dismissal avoids a court finding on infringement or patent validity — but provides no formal legal shield against a future suit asserting the same patent. Epiroc cannot rely on collateral estoppel or res judicata arising from this case. If A.B.I. Safety or a successor refiles, Epiroc would need to relitigate the underlying merits, though the prior litigation record may inform both parties’ strategic positions.
No merits protection for EpirocUnresolved patent leaves US10361533B2 enforcement risk open
US10361533B2 remains an active, unchallenged patent after this dismissal. Competitors in mining and infrastructure drilling equipment — particularly those supplying products that overlap with A.B.I. Safety’s claimed technology — should treat the patent as an unresolved risk. The dismissal does not constitute a determination of invalidity or non-infringement, and Epiroc’s product lines retain latent exposure unless the patent is challenged via IPR or expires. FTO clearance analysis against this patent remains advisable.
Patent still live — FTO risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | A.B.I. Safety, LLC | Company | Idaho-based patent holding entity — holder of US10361533B2 in mining equipment safetySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Epiroc Drilling Solutions, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Epiroc Drilling Tools, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Epiroc AB | Individual | Epiroc AB — Swedish multinational, global leader in mining and infrastructure drilling equipmentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Epiroc Drilling Solutions, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Epiroc Drilling Tools, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Epiroc USA, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul W Daugharty | Attorney | Counsel for A.B.I. Safety, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Paul W. Daugharty, PA | Law Firm | Representing A.B.I. Safety, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher J. Cuneo | Attorney | Counsel for Epiroc ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelly Allenspach Del Dotto | Attorney | Counsel for Epiroc ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Epiroc ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Parsons Behle & Latimer PC | Law Firm | Representing Epiroc ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David C. Nye | Judge | Idaho District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice is filed by A.B.I. Safety’s counsel and invokes Rule 41(a)(1) explicitly, stating the action is dismissed ‘without prejudice.’ This is a unilateral plaintiff filing — not a court order — meaning the court made no ruling on infringement, claim validity, or damages. The phrase ‘without prejudice’ is significant: it signals A.B.I. Safety is not conceding the merits, but the practical enforceability of a future refile depends on the two-dismissal rule, statutes of limitation, and any undisclosed settlement terms.
US10361533B2 — Mining and Infrastructure Equipment Safety Technology
US10361533B2, filed under application number US16/059717, is the single patent asserted in this action. The patent covers technology in the mining and infrastructure equipment space, with A.B.I. Safety positioned as the rights holder. The ‘B2’ designation indicates this is a granted utility patent that has undergone examination and publication of at least one corrected or amended version, typically following post-grant proceedings or examiner amendments. Its grant reflects a substantive examination determination of novelty and non-obviousness over the prior art.
In the mining and drilling equipment sector — where Epiroc AB is a dominant global player — a patent of this type can carry significant commercial leverage. A.B.I. Safety’s choice to assert the patent against multiple Epiroc entities across the U.S. distribution chain suggests a deliberate enforcement strategy targeting both the manufacturer and its downstream affiliates. For competitors developing or supplying mining and infrastructure drilling products, US10361533B2 represents an unresolved patent risk that has not been adjudicated on the merits, making proactive FTO and validity analysis commercially prudent.
Should you run an FTO against US10361533B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing mining and infrastructure drilling equipment in the U.S. market should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US10361533B2. The patent remains enforceable, has not been invalidated by any court or PTAB proceeding on the public record, and was actively asserted by A.B.I. Safety across an entire corporate distribution chain. The voluntary dismissal does not provide competitors with any legal shield — it simply means no court has yet ruled on the patent’s scope or validity.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10361533B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may support an IPR petition, and surface related patents in A.B.I. Safety’s portfolio that may present additional exposure. For R&D teams designing mining safety equipment or drilling systems, an Eureka FTO report can provide a defensible clearance record and flag design-around opportunities before product launch or procurement decisions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10361533B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Infringement Cases in Mining & Drilling Equipment
Explore related patent infringement actions in mining and drilling equipment technology litigated in Idaho and other federal district courts.
What this case signals for the mining equipment IP landscape
A voluntary dismissal after 18 months without a merits ruling leaves key questions about US10361533B2 unanswered — and open for future enforcement.
US10361533B2 is undefeated — invalidity has not been tested
No court has ruled on the validity or scope of US10361533B2. Competitors in mining drilling and infrastructure equipment cannot assume the patent is weak based on this dismissal. Until an IPR petition or a merits ruling addresses the claims, the patent retains its full presumption of validity and enforcement potential.
Voluntary dismissal at 553 days suggests substantive litigation occurred
Cases dismissed this late typically involve discovery, claim construction briefing, or negotiated terms that are not publicly disclosed. IP teams monitoring this case should consider whether a confidential settlement or licensing arrangement underlies the withdrawal — a resolution that may have established commercial terms without creating public precedent.
A.B.I. v Epiroc — key questions answered
A.B.I. Safety, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Epiroc AB and three U.S. affiliates in Idaho federal court, asserting US10361533B2 relating to mining and infrastructure equipment technology. The case was filed on 16 May 2024 and voluntarily dismissed by A.B.I. Safety on 20 November 2025 after 553 days.
The dismissal notice filed by A.B.I. Safety states the action is dismissed ‘without prejudice’ under Rule 41(a)(1). This nominally preserves A.B.I. Safety’s right to refile. However, the public record does not disclose whether any side agreement modifies this, and Rule 41’s two-dismissal rule could operate to make any future dismissal with prejudice.
US10361533B2, filed as US16/059717, is a granted U.S. utility patent held by A.B.I. Safety, LLC covering technology in the mining and infrastructure equipment space. It was the sole patent asserted in the infringement action against Epiroc AB. The ‘B2’ designation indicates a granted patent with at least one post-grant correction or amendment on record.
Epiroc Drilling Solutions, LLC and Epiroc Drilling Tools, LLC are listed among both the ‘Other Plaintiff’ and ‘Other Defendant’ parties in the case data. This structural anomaly is unusual and may reflect complex licensing arrangements, indemnity obligations, or corporate restructuring among the Epiroc entities. The public record does not clarify the precise reason for this dual appearance.
No. A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) carries no legal finding on patent validity or infringement. US10361533B2 remains a presumptively valid, enforceable patent. Competitors in the mining and drilling equipment sector cannot rely on this dismissal as evidence of patent weakness. An IPR petition at PTAB would be required to formally challenge the patent’s validity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.