Blueline Equipment v. Kokanovic: Berry Harvester Patent Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
Blueline Equipment Co LLC and Blueline Mfg Co brought an infringement action against three Kokanovic defendants over US9345195B2, a patent covering the BH400 Berry Harvester. After 389 days, Judge Rebecca L. Pennell dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute — leaving the door open for refiling.
Berry harvester infringement action ends on procedural failure, not on the merits
On 5 April 2024, Blueline Equipment Co LLC and Blueline Mfg Co filed a patent infringement action in the Washington Eastern District Court against Momcilo Kokanovic, Marko Kokanovic, and Miodrag Kokanovic. The asserted patent, US9345195B2, covers technology embodied in the Blueline BH400 Berry Harvester, a piece of specialised mechanical harvesting equipment used in agricultural operations. The plaintiffs were represented by Svendsen Legal LLC and Wells St John PS.
Judge Rebecca L. Pennell dismissed the case without prejudice on 29 April 2025 — specifically for failure to prosecute. The court directed the Clerk to close the file and provide copies to plaintiffs’ counsel. Critically, a without-prejudice dismissal carries no determination on the validity or infringement of US9345195B2; the legal claims remain formally unresolved and Blueline retains the ability to refile the action subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
The 389-day duration, ending without any substantive ruling, suggests the plaintiffs may have encountered strategic, financial, or evidentiary challenges after filing that made continued prosecution untenable at this stage. No defendant law firm or agents are recorded in the public docket, which may indicate the defendants never formally appeared — a pattern that can sometimes precipitate a plaintiff’s own withdrawal. The underlying merits of the infringement claim, and any licensing or settlement discussions between the parties, remain unknown from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 389 days
389 days from filing to dismissal — shorter than the median district court patent case, reflecting early procedural exit rather than merits adjudication
Dismissed without prejudice: what the procedural exit means for both parties
Failure to prosecute: a procedural, not substantive, end
Courts may dismiss a case without prejudice when a plaintiff fails to actively pursue it — filing papers, meeting deadlines, or responding to court orders. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), this is a housekeeping dismissal. Critically, it does not adjudicate whether US9345195B2 was valid or infringed. The record is procedurally closed, not legally resolved.
No merits rulingWithout prejudice preserves Blueline’s right to refile
A without-prejudice dismissal means Blueline Equipment and Blueline Mfg Co are not barred from reasserting their infringement claims. They may refile in the same or another appropriate court, provided the relevant statute of limitations has not expired. This outcome is meaningfully different from a with-prejudice dismissal, which would permanently extinguish the claims. Blueline’s IP position on US9345195B2 is strategically intact.
Refiling possibleKokanovic defendants face no binding judgment — but uncertainty remains
The three Kokanovic defendants — Momcilo, Marko, and Miodrag — face no court-imposed liability or injunction following this dismissal. However, the absence of a merits ruling means they carry no formal finding in their favour either. If Blueline refiles, the defendants will need to defend against the same or similar infringement allegations. The cloud of potential litigation over US9345195B2 persists.
No preclusive effectPatent risk in agricultural harvesting equipment remains unresolved
For competitors and adjacent players in the mechanical berry harvesting sector, this dismissal offers no guidance on the scope or enforceability of US9345195B2. The patent remains active and asserted. Companies developing or distributing berry harvesting equipment should treat this case as deferred — not resolved — and continue to assess freedom-to-operate against this patent. A renewed enforcement action from Blueline cannot be ruled out.
Patent still liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Blueline Equipment Co LLC | Company | Agricultural equipment manufacturer — holder of US9345195B2 (BH400 Berry Harvester)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Blueline Mfg Co | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Momcilo Kokanovic | Individual | Three individual defendants (Momcilo, Marko, and Miodrag Kokanovic) alleged to have infringed berry harvester patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Marko Kokanovic | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Miodrag Kokanovic | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chris E. Svendsen | Attorney | Counsel for Blueline Equipment Co LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark Wayne Hendricksen | Attorney | Counsel for Blueline Equipment Co LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Svendsen Legal LLC | Law Firm | Representing Blueline Equipment Co LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Wells St John PS | Law Firm | Representing Blueline Equipment Co LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rebecca L. Pennell | Judge | Washington Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is unambiguous: dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute, with no ruling on the underlying infringement claims concerning US9345195B2. The phrasing ‘failure to prosecute’ indicates the plaintiffs did not actively advance the case to the court’s satisfaction — whether through missed deadlines, failure to respond to orders, or inactivity. For both parties, this means the legal question of whether the BH400 Berry Harvester patent was infringed remains entirely open. No estoppel, no res judicata, and no injunction flows from this order.
US9345195B2 — Blueline BH400 Berry Harvester Technology
US9345195B2, filed under application number US14/425018, covers technology embodied in the Blueline BH400 Berry Harvester — a specialised mechanical harvesting machine for soft-fruit agricultural operations. The patent’s granted status means it has cleared USPTO examination for novelty and non-obviousness. As the case was dismissed on procedural grounds, no court has construed its claims or assessed its validity, meaning its full legal scope is still to be tested in adversarial proceedings.
For companies active in mechanised berry and soft-fruit harvesting — whether manufacturing harvesters, supplying components, or licensing harvesting technology — US9345195B2 represents an active enforcement risk. Blueline’s decision to assert the patent against individual defendants, and the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal, suggests the patentee retains strategic intent to protect this IP. The patent should be treated as live and potentially assertable against any product that replicates the BH400’s core mechanical harvesting approach.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9345195B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, distributing, or licensing mechanical berry harvesting equipment should assess freedom-to-operate against US9345195B2 before market entry or product expansion. This patent has been actively asserted in federal court, and the without-prejudice dismissal means enforcement action could resume. The risk is particularly acute for small-to-mid-size agricultural equipment makers who may lack the litigation resources to defend a renewed infringement claim.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US9345195B2 against your product specifications, surface relevant prior art that could inform invalidity arguments, and flag related patents in Blueline’s portfolio that may create additional exposure. Setting up patent monitoring alerts on US9345195B2 will ensure you receive early warning if Blueline refiles or seeks inter partes review proceedings.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9345195B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar agricultural equipment patent infringement cases in US district courts
Cases involving mechanical harvesting equipment patents in Washington and neighbouring Western US district courts, with comparable individual-defendant infringement fact patterns.
What this case signals for the agricultural equipment IP landscape
A failure-to-prosecute dismissal rarely signals weakness in the patent itself — it often reflects resourcing or timing decisions by the patentee.
Without-prejudice exits keep enforcement options alive — monitor for refiling
Blueline retains all rights to reassert US9345195B2. Competitors in the berry and soft-fruit harvesting equipment market should set up litigation monitoring alerts on this patent number and the named plaintiffs. A refiled action — potentially with stronger pre-suit preparation — is a realistic near-term risk.
No defendant legal representation on record warrants closer scrutiny
The absence of any recorded defendant counsel or law firm suggests the Kokanovic defendants may not have formally appeared. This is an unusual posture and may have influenced the plaintiffs’ prosecution decisions. It could also indicate negotiations or arrangements outside the formal docket that are not visible in public records.
Blueline v Momcilo — key questions answered
A without-prejudice dismissal in case 1:24-cv-03051 means the court terminated the case on procedural grounds — specifically failure to prosecute — without deciding whether US9345195B2 was valid or infringed. Blueline Equipment and Blueline Mfg Co retain the right to refile their infringement claims against the Kokanovic defendants, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
Blueline Equipment Co LLC and Blueline Mfg Co asserted US9345195B2 (application number US14/425018), a patent covering the Blueline BH400 Berry Harvester. The case was filed in the Washington Eastern District Court on 5 April 2024 and dismissed without prejudice on 29 April 2025 for failure to prosecute.
Courts dismiss cases for failure to prosecute when plaintiffs do not actively advance their litigation — such as missing deadlines, failing to respond to court orders, or becoming inactive. The public record for 1:24-cv-03051 does not specify the precise triggering event, but Judge Pennell’s order confirms the dismissal was procedural rather than substantive. No merits ruling was entered on the berry harvester patent claims.
Yes. Because the dismissal in 1:24-cv-03051 was entered without prejudice, Blueline Equipment Co LLC and Blueline Mfg Co are not barred from reasserting their US9345195B2 infringement claims in a new action. They would need to comply with any applicable statutes of limitations and could potentially refile in the Washington Eastern District or another court with proper jurisdiction.
The Blueline BH400 is a mechanical berry harvesting machine, with its core technology protected by US9345195B2. The patent has been actively asserted in federal court, signalling Blueline’s intent to enforce its IP against third parties. For competitors in the mechanised soft-fruit harvesting equipment sector, the patent represents an ongoing freedom-to-operate risk — particularly given that the without-prejudice dismissal leaves the claims unresolved and available for re-assertion.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.