Brooks Automation v. Planar Motor: Infringement Action Dismissed With Prejudice
Brooks Automation US, LLC brought a patent infringement action against Planar Motor, Inc. in Nevada, asserting two patents covering multi-dimension position sensing and planar motor systems including XBots and Flyways. After 246 days of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice, each bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs.
Planar motor IP dispute ends in bilateral walk-away after 246 days
Brooks Automation US, LLC filed suit against Planar Motor, Inc. in the Nevada District Court on 30 September 2025, asserting infringement of US8129984B2 (multi-dimension position sensor) and US8803513B2 (planar motor system). The accused products identified in the record are Planar Motor's XBots and Flyways across all sizes, components of its planar motor ecosystem.
The case closed on 3 June 2026 via a joint stipulation filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice; the stipulation text confirms all claims against all parties are dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs. The specific commercial terms, if any, underlying the stipulation are not disclosed in the available record.
At 246 days, the case resolved before any publicly recorded merits determination. What drove the parties to a mutual walk-away — whether through settlement, licensing arrangement, or another commercial resolution — is not apparent from the public docket. The with-prejudice designation forecloses Brooks Automation from re-filing the same claims against Planar Motor in future proceedings.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 246 days
246 days from filing to dismissal with prejudice in Nevada District Court
US8129984B2 & US8803513B2 — planar motor position sensing and system architecture
Any company developing planar motor systems, magnetic levitation transport, or multi-axis position sensing for semiconductor or advanced manufacturing automation should assess freedom to operate against these two patents. The accused product scope in this case — XBots and Flyways of every size — suggests the claims may be interpreted broadly across mover-track architectures. Both patents remain in force and enforceable following this dismissal.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which permits parties to dismiss an action by filing a signed stipulation without court approval. The with-prejudice designation converts this procedural mechanism into a final, merits-equivalent termination, permanently barring re-assertion of the same claims. The mutual cost-bearing provision is noted in the record; no further financial or licensing terms are disclosed.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a joint stipulation signed by all parties and filed without requiring court approval. The 'with prejudice' designation is legally significant: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Brooks Automation from re-asserting the same patent claims against Planar Motor on the same accused products.
Permanent bar on re-filingBrooks Automation relinquishes the right to re-litigate these claims
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Brooks Automation permanently surrenders the right to sue Planar Motor again on US8129984B2 and US8803513B2 for the accused XBots and Flyways. The patents themselves remain in force and enforceable against third parties. The specific terms — if any — that led Brooks to accept this outcome are not disclosed in the available record.
Patents survive; claims extinguishedPlanar Motor secures finality — no damages, no injunction on record
Planar Motor, Inc. exits this litigation with no recorded judgment, damages award, or injunction against its XBot and Flyway products. The with-prejudice dismissal provides Planar Motor with certainty that Brooks Automation cannot revive these specific claims. Each party bearing its own costs suggests neither side achieved a clear-cut litigation victory compelling a fee-shifting outcome.
No liability recordedBilateral cost-sharing signals a negotiated exit, not capitulation
The mutual fee-bearing arrangement — rather than one-sided cost recovery — is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a decisive win for either party. Companies operating in the planar motor and precision automation sector should note that US8129984B2 and US8803513B2 remain active and enforceable. The with-prejudice bar applies only to Planar Motor; other market participants remain potential enforcement targets.
Patents remain third-party riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Brooks Automation US, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Planar Motor, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Arthur A. Zorio | Attorney | Counsel for Brooks Automation US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Catherine Huang | Attorney | Counsel for Brooks Automation US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Clayton Walter Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for Brooks Automation US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jon Ikegami | Attorney | Counsel for Brooks Automation US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Larissa S. Bifano | Attorney | Counsel for Brooks Automation US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew D. Francis | Attorney | Counsel for Brooks Automation US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Ganas | Attorney | Counsel for Brooks Automation US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP | Law Firm | Representing Brooks Automation US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | DLA Piper LLP (US) | Law Firm | Representing Brooks Automation US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | DLA Piper, LLP (US) | Law Firm | Representing Brooks Automation US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adam Hosmer-Henner | Attorney | Counsel for Planar Motor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alyssa B. Ertel | Attorney | Counsel for Planar Motor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Keller | Attorney | Counsel for Planar Motor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Han Xu | Attorney | Counsel for Planar Motor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua Reich | Attorney | Counsel for Planar Motor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas P. Groombridge | Attorney | Counsel for Planar Motor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven Baughman | Attorney | Counsel for Planar Motor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thaddeus Houston | Attorney | Counsel for Planar Motor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Groombridge Wu Baughman & Stone LLP | Law Firm | Representing Planar Motor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McDonald Carano LLP | Law Firm | Representing Planar Motor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Nevada District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the planar motor and position sensing IP space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from Brooks Automation v. Planar Motor — covering portfolio trends, filing activity, and white space in the precision automation sector.
Brooks Automation's planar motor patent portfolio depth
Brooks Automation has asserted at least two patents covering distinct layers of planar motor technology — sensing and system architecture. Understanding the breadth of the broader patent family around US8129984B2 and US8803513B2, including continuations and divisionals, helps competitors and potential licensees map the full enforcement perimeter before entering this technology space.
Portfolio enforcement riskFiling trends in contactless planar motor and mover positioning systems
Planar motor systems — particularly those using magnetic levitation and multi-axis position sensing — are attracting increased patent filings across semiconductor automation, advanced packaging, and cleanroom logistics. Tracking claim-level filing trends in this domain helps R&D teams identify crowded sub-spaces and emerging white-space opportunities before development investment is committed.
Rising filing activityPlanar Motor's IP position in the XBot and Flyway architecture space
Planar Motor, Inc. was the defendant in an assertion targeting its core XBot and Flyway product lines. Assessing Planar Motor's own patent filings — defensive or offensive — in mover transport and track systems reveals how the company is positioning its IP estate relative to incumbents like Brooks Automation and other precision motion players.
Defensive IP mappingAdjacent innovation opportunities near multi-axis position sensing for planar systems
The combination of multi-dimension position sensing and planar motor system architecture leaves adjacent areas — including sensor fusion approaches, redundant position detection, and AI-assisted mover control — potentially less densely patented. R&D teams can use claim-gap analysis to identify differentiated design paths that reduce collision with the Brooks Automation patent family.
Design-around opportunitySimilar patent infringement cases in planar motor and precision automation
Explore comparable infringement actions involving planar motor systems, position sensing technology, and semiconductor automation patents litigated at the district court level.
What this case signals for the planar motor and automation IP landscape
A with-prejudice bilateral dismissal in precision automation signals active portfolio enforcement — and unresolved competitive tension in the planar motor sector.
US8129984B2 and US8803513B2 remain live enforcement tools against third parties
The dismissal with prejudice binds only the parties to this action. Brooks Automation retains full rights to assert both patents against other planar motor system manufacturers. Companies developing XY-stage, linear motor, or multi-dimension position sensor technology should treat these patents as active risk vectors requiring FTO analysis.
Planar motor system IP is a contested space — monitor filing activity closely
The assertion of two patents covering planar motor architecture and position sensing within a single action signals that Brooks Automation views its portfolio as commercially important. R&D teams working on contactless transport, semiconductor fab automation, or high-precision motion systems should monitor continuation filings from the US8129984 and US8803513 patent families.
Brooks v Planar — key questions answered
Brooks Automation US, LLC asserted two patents: US8129984B2 (multi-dimension position sensor, application US12/163716) and US8803513B2 (planar motor system, application US13/412392). The accused products were Planar Motor's XBots and Flyways of every size.
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. No further terms are disclosed in the available public record.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Brooks Automation from re-asserting the same claims under US8129984B2 and US8803513B2 against Planar Motor for the accused XBot and Flyway products. However, both patents remain valid and enforceable against third parties not party to this stipulation.
No. The with-prejudice designation in the joint stipulation operates as a final adjudication on the merits under applicable federal procedural rules, permanently precluding Brooks Automation from bringing the same patent claims against Planar Motor for the same accused products in any future action.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice applies only to the claims between Brooks Automation and Planar Motor in this specific action. Both patents remain in force and can be asserted against other parties. Companies developing planar motor systems or multi-dimension position sensing technology should assess their exposure through an FTO analysis.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.