Burandt v. Vidal: ICE Air-Fuel Optimization Patent Action Dismissed
Corliss O. Burandt filed suit against USPTO Director Katherine K. Vidal in the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting US4961406A covering air-fuel mixture burn rate optimization in internal combustion engines. The case closed voluntarily without prejudice 217 days after filing, leaving core patent rights unresolved on the merits.
Pro-se patent holder targets USPTO Director in Virginia dispute
On 3 May 2024, Corliss O. Burandt filed case 1:24-cv-00751 in the Virginia Eastern District Court against Katherine K. Vidal in her capacity as Director of the USPTO. The suit asserts US4961406A, a patent covering methods and devices for optimising the air-fuel mixture burn rate of internal combustion engines under low-speed, light, and heavy load operating conditions. Burandt was represented by Pennington Oliak PLLC, while Vidal’s defence was handled by DOJ-USAO with four counsel of record.
The case closed on 6 December 2024 via a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), a voluntary dismissal without prejudice means the case is terminated but no judgment on the merits is entered. Critically, the plaintiff retains the right to refile the same claims in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and court rules. No settlement terms, consent decree, or adverse finding against either party appears in the public record.
At 217 days from filing to closure, the resolution is relatively swift for patent litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia — a court known for its historically accelerated docket. The absence of any merits ruling suggests the parties may have reached an informal understanding, or that the plaintiff reassessed the viability of the claim against a government-defendant, though the public record does not confirm either. The without-prejudice designation means the strategic posture of US4961406A remains open.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 217 days
217 days — resolved before trial, faster than average district court patent lifecycle
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice: what this means for both sides
Rule 41(a) dismissal without prejudice explained
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a) terminates the current action without any judgment on the merits. No court has ruled on patent validity, infringement, or enforceability. The plaintiff initiated the dismissal, meaning the defendant did not obtain a favorable ruling. The case record is closed, but the underlying legal dispute is technically unresolved.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice vs. with prejudice: a critical difference
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is a final judgment — the plaintiff cannot refile the same claims. A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile. Here, the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was explicitly without prejudice. This means Burandt retains the option to reassert claims under US4961406A in a future action, subject to any applicable time limits and the two-dismissal rule under FRCP 41(a)(1)(B).
Refiling remains possibleBurandt exits without adverse ruling — but gains nothing resolved
The without-prejudice dismissal is neither a win nor a loss for Burandt in a formal legal sense. The patent US4961406A has not been invalidated, and no infringement finding was made. However, no enforcement remedy was granted either. If Burandt’s underlying objective was to compel USPTO Director action or obtain a damages award, those goals remain unmet. The strategic calculus for any future refiling will need to account for this prior attempt.
Patent validity intactGovernment defendant avoids merits ruling on USPTO Director liability
Katherine Vidal, represented by DOJ-USAO with four assigned counsel, exits without an adverse judgment. Suits against the USPTO Director in patent-related matters typically raise complex jurisdictional and sovereign immunity questions. The dismissal before any substantive ruling means those threshold issues were never tested on the record, which may be significant if similar actions are filed by Burandt or others asserting comparable claims.
No precedent setFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Corliss O. Burandt | Individual | Individual patent holder — asserting US4961406A covering ICE air-fuel optimisationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Katherine K. Vidal | Individual | USPTO Director Katherine K. Vidal, sued in her official government capacitySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward Alan Pennington | Attorney | Counsel for Corliss O. BurandtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Pennington Oliak Pllc | Law Firm | Representing Corliss O. BurandtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dennis Carl Barghaan , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew J. Mezger | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Omar Farooq Amin | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter John Ayers | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DOJ-USAO | Law Firm | Representing Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Virginia Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice is a plaintiff-initiated procedural exit, not a court-adjudicated outcome. It carries no findings on infringement, validity, or enforceability of US4961406A. For Vidal and the USPTO, the without-prejudice nature means the matter could theoretically recur. For practitioners, the phrasing is significant: it expressly preserves Burandt’s litigation options while the government avoids any substantive ruling on the scope of USPTO Director liability in patent-related suits.
US4961406A — Air-Fuel Mixture Burn Rate Optimisation for ICE
US4961406A, filed under application number US07/178467, protects a method and device designed to optimise the air-fuel mixture burn rate in internal combustion engines — specifically targeting performance under low-speed, light-load, and heavy-load operating conditions. This technology sits at the intersection of combustion chemistry and engine management, addressing a fundamental inefficiency challenge that has driven decades of ICE engineering. The patent’s filing generation places it in a cohort of foundational combustion optimisation inventions from the late 1980s.
For the automotive and industrial engine sector, a patent of this scope — covering burn rate optimisation across the ICE operating envelope — could implicate a broad range of fuel system components, engine control units, and aftermarket performance devices. As hybrid powertrains increasingly rely on refined ICE operation during transitional modes, legacy combustion optimisation patents warrant renewed attention. Suppliers and OEMs developing next-generation engine management systems should assess whether their architectures read on claims of this type.
Should your team run an FTO against US4961406A?
Any company designing or manufacturing air-fuel ratio control systems, combustion optimisation devices, or engine management software for internal combustion engines — including hybrid applications — should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US4961406A. The fact that this patent was actively asserted in federal court in 2024 confirms it is being enforced. The without-prejudice dismissal means enforcement activity could resume. The risk is most acute for suppliers of fuel injection controllers, variable valve timing systems, and adaptive fuel management ECUs.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US4961406A against your product architecture, identify design-around opportunities, and flag related continuation or family patents that may present parallel risk. Eureka’s AI-assisted claim analysis allows your team to assess literal and doctrine-of-equivalents exposure across the full claim set — reducing the time and cost of a manual FTO review while surfacing the prior art and claim differentiation arguments most relevant to combustion engine optimisation technology.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US4961406A to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ICE patent infringement cases in US district courts
Explore related internal combustion engine patent disputes filed in US district courts, including cases asserting combustion optimisation and air-fuel management patents.
What this case signals for the internal combustion engine IP landscape
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice in a government-defendant patent suit leaves enforcement posture unsettled and warrants monitoring.
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice keeps US4961406A in play
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, US4961406A has not been adjudicated as invalid or unenforceable. Companies operating in the internal combustion engine optimisation space — including OEMs, fuel system suppliers, and aftermarket device manufacturers — should note that claims under this patent could be reasserted. An FTO review against US4961406A remains advisable for any product touching air-fuel mixture burn rate control.
Suits against the USPTO Director signal underlying prosecution disputes
Actions naming the USPTO Director as defendant often arise from disputes over patent prosecution outcomes — including rejections, reexaminations, or interference proceedings — rather than standard infringement claims. The voluntary dismissal here suggests the underlying administrative dispute may have shifted in a way that rendered the litigation unnecessary, though no public record confirms this. IP counsel should track whether related USPTO proceedings continue post-dismissal.
Burandt v Katherine — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 6 December 2024. Plaintiff Corliss O. Burandt filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, terminating the action with no merits ruling on US4961406A. The without-prejudice designation means Burandt retains the right to refile claims in a future action.
US4961406A protects a method and device for optimising the air-fuel mixture burn rate of internal combustion engines under varying load conditions. The suit named USPTO Director Katherine Vidal as defendant, which typically signals a dispute rooted in patent prosecution or administrative proceedings at the USPTO rather than commercial product infringement.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a) closes the case without any judgment on patent validity, infringement, or enforceability. The plaintiff can refile the same claims in the future. Critically, if the same plaintiff has previously dismissed the same claim, the two-dismissal rule under FRCP 41(a)(1)(B) may convert a subsequent dismissal into an adjudication on the merits.
The dismissal without prejudice did not invalidate US4961406A or render it unenforceable. No court ruled on the patent’s validity or infringement. Companies in the internal combustion engine and fuel management sectors should verify current patent status directly and consider an FTO review, given the patent was actively asserted in 2024.
The docket confirms the case was filed and adjudicated in the Virginia Eastern District Court (case 1:24-cv-00751). The case region field may reflect a data classification variance. The operative venue for all proceedings was the Eastern District of Virginia, which has jurisdiction over suits involving the USPTO Director given the agency’s Alexandria headquarters.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.