Avery Dennison v. ADASA: Federal Circuit RFID Appeal Dismissed in 21 Days
Avery Dennison Corp. and ADASA, Inc. jointly dismissed their Federal Circuit appeal over US9798967B2, a patent covering RFID transponder technology. The proceeding ended under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) just 21 days after filing, with each side bearing its own costs — suggesting a negotiated resolution reached almost immediately after the appeal was lodged.
A 21-Day Federal Circuit Exit: Avery Dennison and ADASA Part Ways on Appeal
On 11 April 2024, Avery Dennison Corp. — a global leader in labelling and packaging materials and holder of US9798967B2 — filed an appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against ADASA, Inc. in case No. 24-1673. The underlying dispute was an infringement action centred on US9798967B2, a patent directed at RFID transponder technology, specifically relating to serial-number encoding and assignment methods used in RFID tags and labels.
The appeal was terminated on 2 May 2024 — just 21 days after filing — when the parties jointly agreed to dismiss the proceeding under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). The court ordered dismissal and directed that each side bear its own costs. Critically, the Federal Circuit issued no merits ruling: no claim construction, no validity analysis, and no infringement determination were made at the appellate level. The patent’s enforceability status, as shaped by whatever district-court proceedings preceded this appeal, is therefore unaltered by this appellate dismissal.
A 21-day appellate lifespan is exceptionally short, even for agreed dismissals, and strongly suggests the parties had reached — or were very close to reaching — a commercial settlement before or immediately after the appeal was filed. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a capitulation by either side. The public record is silent on the specific terms of any underlying agreement, and no licensing or damages figures have been disclosed.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 21 days
21 days — among the shortest Federal Circuit appeal durations on record
Appeal dismissed by agreement: what Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): a consensual procedural exit, not a merits ruling
Rule 42(b) allows parties to dismiss a Federal Circuit appeal by agreement without the court adjudicating the underlying dispute. No claim construction, validity determination, or infringement finding was issued. The lower-court record — whatever it established — remains the last substantive word on the merits. This dismissal does not create binding appellate precedent and cannot be cited as a ruling on the patent’s validity or scope.
No merits adjudicationUS9798967B2 survives the appeal unchallenged on the merits
For Avery Dennison, the dismissal means the Federal Circuit did not disturb whatever district-court outcome it had appealed from — or, if ADASA was the original appellant, that challenge has now been withdrawn. The patent remains in force and its enforceability posture is unchanged by this proceeding. The public record does not reveal whether Avery Dennison secured licensing terms or other commercial concessions as part of the agreed dismissal.
Patent status unchangedADASA exits the Federal Circuit without a favourable appellate ruling
ADASA’s participation in a consensual Rule 42(b) dismissal typically signals that continued appellate litigation was not commercially attractive — whether due to settlement economics, litigation cost, or risk assessment. Without a merits ruling, ADASA did not obtain a court finding invalidating or narrowing US9798967B2. Any future challenge to the patent would need to be pursued through separate proceedings, such as an IPR petition at the USPTO.
No invalidity ruling obtainedRFID transponder IP landscape: the patent remains a live enforcement asset
US9798967B2 exits this appeal with its claims intact and untested at the Federal Circuit level. For competitors and suppliers operating in RFID transponder, smart-label, and serialisation markets, the patent remains a credible enforcement risk. The 21-day resolution timeline suggests both parties valued commercial certainty over a lengthy appellate battle — a pattern increasingly common in high-stakes RFID and supply-chain technology disputes.
Enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Avery Dennison Corp. | Company | Global labelling and RFID solutions company — holder of US9798967B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ADASA, Inc. | Company | ADASA, Inc. — RFID technology company, appellant’s adversary in infringement actionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Derek L. Shaffer | Attorney | Counsel for Avery Dennison Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Owen Fullerton Roberts | Attorney | Counsel for Avery Dennison Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Avery Dennison Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Tad Suder | Attorney | Counsel for ADASA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Friedman, Suder & Cooke, PC | Law Firm | Representing ADASA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order is procedural in nature: the Federal Circuit exercised no jurisdiction over the merits of the infringement action. The phrase ‘the parties having so agreed’ confirms this was a consensual exit under Rule 42(b), not a unilateral withdrawal or a court-initiated termination. The cost-neutrality clause — each side bearing its own costs — is a standard feature of agreed appellate dismissals and provides no indication of which party held the stronger legal position on the underlying infringement or validity questions.
US9798967B2 — RFID Transponder Serial-Number Encoding Technology
US9798967B2 (application no. US15/042993) is directed at RFID transponder technology, specifically methods and systems for encoding and assigning serial numbers to RFID tags. This area of IP sits at the intersection of automatic identification, supply-chain serialisation, and smart-label manufacturing — all sectors experiencing rapid growth as regulatory traceability requirements and e-commerce logistics demands increase. The patent’s claims, as originally asserted, cover processes integral to how RFID transponders are programmed and individualised at scale.
For Avery Dennison — one of the world’s largest producers of RFID inlays and smart labels — this patent represents a strategic asset in a market where serialisation accuracy and encoding efficiency are competitive differentiators. Competitors and contract manufacturers in the RFID transponder supply chain, including companies producing inlays, readers, or encoding equipment, should assess whether their processes fall within the patent’s claim scope. The patent’s survival through this appeal without any narrowing or invalidation increases its commercial leverage in licensing negotiations.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9798967B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or integrating RFID transponders — particularly those involving serial-number encoding, batch commissioning, or EPC assignment workflows — should treat US9798967B2 as a relevant prior art and freedom-to-operate consideration. The patent’s claims survived this Federal Circuit appeal without modification, and the patentee has demonstrated a willingness to pursue infringement litigation through the appellate level. Product teams developing smart-label encoding systems, RFID inlay commissioning platforms, or serialisation middleware are especially exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the active claim landscape of US9798967B2 against your specific product architecture, identify design-around opportunities, and surface any pending continuations or related family members that may extend the patent’s coverage. Given the absence of any appellate claim construction in this case, the patent’s scope remains as originally construed — making an independent FTO assessment essential before entering or expanding in the RFID transponder encoding market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9798967B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar RFID Patent Infringement Appeals at the Federal Circuit
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving RFID transponder and smart-label patents, including cases with comparable Rule 42(b) dismissal patterns and RFID encoding claim disputes.
What this case signals for the RFID and smart-label IP landscape
A 21-day Federal Circuit dismissal in an RFID infringement appeal carries distinct signals for patent holders, challengers, and product teams in the automatic-identification sector.
Speed of dismissal is a settlement signal, not a legal outcome
When a Federal Circuit appeal collapses within 21 days under Rule 42(b), it almost always reflects a deal struck outside the courtroom. Neither party obtained a merits ruling, meaning the patent’s validity and scope remain legally unresolved. IP teams monitoring this dispute should treat it as a commercial settlement, not a legal vindication for either side.
US9798967B2 remains a live enforcement risk in the RFID sector
The patent was not invalidated, narrowed, or disclaimed through this proceeding. Any company designing or distributing RFID transponders, smart labels, or serialisation systems that overlap with the patent’s claims should conduct an independent freedom-to-operate analysis. The absence of an appellate ruling does not provide a safe harbour.
Avery v ADASA — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement of the parties on 2 May 2024, just 21 days after filing. No merits ruling was issued. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs. The dismissal does not affect the validity or enforceability of US9798967B2.
A Rule 42(b) dismissal is purely procedural — the Federal Circuit made no determination on validity, claim scope, or infringement. US9798967B2 remains in force as issued. Its enforceability is governed by whatever the district court determined in the proceedings that preceded this appeal, which the appellate dismissal leaves undisturbed.
The 21-day duration strongly suggests the parties reached a commercial agreement — likely a settlement — before or immediately after the appeal was filed. Agreed appellate dismissals of this speed typically reflect pre-negotiated terms rather than a substantive change in legal position. The public record does not disclose the specific terms of any such agreement.
Yes. The patent was not invalidated, disclaimed, or narrowed by this proceeding. The Federal Circuit’s dismissal order is silent on the merits. Companies operating in the RFID transponder encoding space should treat the patent as a live enforcement asset and conduct independent FTO analysis if their products may implicate the patent’s claims.
US9798967B2 covers RFID transponder technology, specifically methods and systems related to serial-number encoding and assignment for RFID tags. The plaintiff is Avery Dennison Corp., a global leader in RFID inlays and smart-label manufacturing. The defendant is ADASA, Inc., an RFID technology company. The case was an infringement action that reached the Federal Circuit before being jointly dismissed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.