All Terminal Services v. Roboflow: Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed in 19 Days
All Terminal Services, LLC (dba ConGlobal Technologies) brought a Federal Circuit appeal against Roboflow, Inc. asserting three patents covering AI-driven railway yard control systems. The parties reached agreement and jointly dismissed the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) after just 19 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
A 19-day Federal Circuit exit: three railway AI patents, no merits ruling
All Terminal Services, LLC, operating as ConGlobal Technologies, filed an infringement action predicated on three U.S. patents — US12217183B2, US12254439B2, and US12020148B1 — each directed to control systems for railway yards and related methods incorporating computer-vision and AI-driven automation. The defendant, Roboflow, Inc., is a computer-vision platform provider whose technology is potentially implicated in automated industrial and logistics environments, including intermodal terminal operations.
The appeal was filed at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 25 September 2025 and closed on 14 October 2025 — a span of just 19 days. Termination was achieved through voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), with both parties expressly agreeing to the dismissal. The court ordered that each side bear its own costs, suggesting a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral withdrawal by either party.
The 19-day duration is notably brief even by appellate standards, consistent with a settlement or licensing arrangement reached shortly after — or concurrent with — the appeal’s filing. The public record does not disclose any financial terms, licensing conditions, or underlying district court outcome. Whether this appeal followed a district court loss by the plaintiff or represented an interlocutory matter is not determinable from the appellate docket alone, and the absence of a merits ruling leaves the validity and enforceability of all three patents unresolved by the Federal Circuit.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 19 days
19 days — among the shortest Federal Circuit appeal durations on record, suggesting pre-agreed resolution
Appeal dismissed under Rule 42(b): what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): agreed voluntary dismissal, no merits adjudication
Rule 42(b) permits parties to dismiss a Federal Circuit appeal by stipulation. Unlike a merits ruling, it leaves the underlying patents neither validated nor invalidated by the appellate court. The Federal Circuit issued no opinion on claim construction, patentability, or infringement. This procedural exit is commonly used when parties resolve their dispute privately while the appeal is pending.
No merits ruling issuedVoluntary — but the public record is silent on with/without prejudice
The order states dismissal under Rule 42(b) by party agreement but does not expressly specify whether it is with or without prejudice. A with-prejudice dismissal bars re-litigation; without prejudice preserves future claims. Practitioners should not assume either outcome from the face of this order. The distinction carries material consequences for future enforcement of the three asserted patents against Roboflow.
Prejudice status not statedEach side bears its own costs — a hallmark of negotiated resolution
The court ordered that each party bear its own costs, departing from the default rule that costs follow the prevailing party. This mutual cost-bearing arrangement is a strong signal that the dismissal reflects a bilateral agreement — potentially a license, covenant not to sue, or settlement — rather than a unilateral concession. Neither party can claim cost recovery from this proceeding.
No cost award to either partyThree railway AI patents survive unchallenged at appellate level
Because the Federal Circuit issued no opinion, US12217183B2, US12254439B2, and US12020148B1 remain without appellate scrutiny of their validity or scope. Competitors in AI-driven railway yard automation and computer-vision logistics platforms should treat these patents as live enforcement risks. The rapid resolution may signal ConGlobal Technologies’ willingness to license, but the terms remain undisclosed.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ALL TERMINAL SERVICES, LLC, dba ConGlobal Technologies | Company | Railway yard AI automation technology company — holder of US12217183B2, US12254439B2, US12020148B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ROBOFLOW, INC. | Company | Roboflow, Inc. — computer-vision platform provider for industrial and logistics AI applicationsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | April Michelle Meeks | Attorney | Counsel for ALL TERMINAL SERVICES, LLC, dba ConGlobal TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin M. Bell | Attorney | Counsel for ALL TERMINAL SERVICES, LLC, dba ConGlobal TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Zapadka | Attorney | Counsel for ALL TERMINAL SERVICES, LLC, dba ConGlobal TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Arnall Golden Gregory, LLP | Law Firm | Representing ALL TERMINAL SERVICES, LLC, dba ConGlobal TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Raghav Krishnapriyan | Attorney | Counsel for ROBOFLOW, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy J. Carroll | Attorney | Counsel for ROBOFLOW, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Law Firm | Representing ROBOFLOW, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order’s language — ‘The parties having so agreed’ — confirms this was a bilateral, consensual dismissal rather than a unilateral withdrawal. The Federal Circuit invoked Rule 42(b) without addressing any substantive issue. No standard of review was applied; no claim construction was performed. The mutual cost-bearing term is legally significant: it eliminates any ‘prevailing party’ designation, which may affect downstream fee-shifting arguments if litigation resumes in another forum.
US12217183B2, US12254439B2 & US12020148B1 — Railway Yard AI Control Systems
The three asserted patents — US12217183B2, US12254439B2, and US12020148B1 — are directed to control systems for railway yards and related methods, spanning application numbers US18/731207, US18/748961, and US16/951015 respectively. The application genealogy across two 18-series and one 16-series application number suggests a portfolio developed over multiple prosecution cycles, potentially covering distinct technical aspects of yard automation such as object detection, vehicle tracking, and operational command logic within intermodal terminal environments.
For the computer-vision and industrial AI sector, this portfolio represents a convergence of railway logistics domain expertise and machine-learning-based automation — a space attracting significant commercial interest as intermodal terminals seek to reduce dwell times and improve asset utilisation. ConGlobal Technologies’ dba relationship with All Terminal Services positions this portfolio as operationally grounded rather than purely speculative, which typically strengthens enforcement credibility. Competitors deploying vision AI in port, rail, or intermodal settings should treat all three grants as active enforcement risks.
Should your team run an FTO against US12217183B2, US12254439B2 & US12020148B1?
Any company developing or commercialising computer-vision systems, AI-based object detection, or automated control platforms for railway yards, intermodal terminals, or adjacent logistics environments should prioritise a freedom-to-operate assessment against this three-patent family. The fact that Roboflow — a horizontal vision platform provider — was named as defendant suggests that both platform-level and application-level players are within the asserted scope. The absence of a merits ruling means no claim has been judicially narrowed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US12217183B2, US12254439B2, and US12020148B1 against your product architecture, flag design-around opportunities, and identify prior art that may support an IPR petition. Given the continuation-style prosecution chain visible in the application numbers, Eureka can also surface related pending applications that may extend the family’s enforcement reach — a critical step before committing to product design decisions in railway or intermodal automation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12217183B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in railway AI and computer-vision patent enforcement
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving AI-driven industrial control system patents, computer-vision platform defendants, and rapid voluntary dismissals in the logistics automation sector.
What this case signals for the railway AI and computer-vision IP landscape
A 19-day Federal Circuit dismissal over three AI control-system patents is a rare and telling data point for the industrial automation sector.
Computer-vision platforms face growing exposure in industrial automation IP
ConGlobal Technologies’ assertion against Roboflow signals that horizontal computer-vision platforms — not just end-user deployers — are being targeted in industrial AI patent enforcement. Companies licensing vision AI for logistics, intermodal, or rail applications should audit their exposure against this patent family.
A 19-day Federal Circuit resolution suggests terms were pre-negotiated
Appeals resolved this quickly rarely involve substantive briefing. The mutual cost-bearing order and near-immediate dismissal are consistent with a licensing arrangement or covenant negotiated at or before the appeal’s filing. Monitoring the subsequent commercial relationship between these parties may reveal the structure of any deal.
ALL v ROBOFLOW — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal (No. 25-2150) was voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) after 19 days. Both parties agreed to the dismissal, and the court ordered each side to bear its own costs. No merits ruling was issued on the three asserted patents covering railway yard AI control systems.
Three patents were asserted: US12217183B2 (application US18/731207), US12254439B2 (application US18/748961), and US12020148B1 (application US16/951015). All three are directed to control systems for railway yards and related methods, forming a multi-patent portfolio potentially built through continuation prosecution.
No. A Rule 42(b) voluntary dismissal carries no validity determination. The Federal Circuit issued no opinion on patentability, claim scope, or infringement. US12217183B2, US12254439B2, and US12020148B1 remain granted patents and are presumptively valid and enforceable unless and until successfully challenged through IPR or district court proceedings.
The public court order does not expressly state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. The order references Rule 42(b) and mutual agreement but is silent on this distinction. Practitioners should not assume either characterisation from the face of the order. The prejudice status has material implications for whether All Terminal Services could reassert these patents against Roboflow in future proceedings.
A 19-day appeal duration is unusually short and suggests the parties had reached or were close to a private resolution — potentially a licensing agreement, covenant not to sue, or settlement — at or around the time of filing. No appellate briefs would typically be due within 19 days, making substantive litigation effectively impossible in that window. The mutual cost-bearing order reinforces the inference of a negotiated bilateral exit.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.