Cemco v. KPSI Innovations: Willful Infringement, $3.7M Award & Permanent Injunction
Cemco LLC secured a full plaintiff win against KPSI Innovations and three individual Klein defendants over four patents covering fire-rated head-of-wall fireblock systems. The jury found willful induced infringement and fraudulent transfer, resulting in over $3.7 million in total damages, enhanced fees, and a permanent injunction barring KPSI from the market for the life of the patents.
Cemco wins total exclusion of KPSI from fire-rated wall market
Filed on 16 June 2023 in the Western District of Washington before Judge James L. Robart, this case pitted Cemco LLC — holder of four U.S. patents covering fire-rated head-of-wall fireblock systems and intumescent products — against KPSI Innovations, Inc. and three individual defendants: James A. Klein, Kevin Klein, and Serina Klein. Cemco alleged that KPSI induced third parties to infringe its patents through the sale and promotion of competing FRG intumescent products used in fire-rated head-of-wall constructions.
The case closed on 7 March 2025 with judgment entirely in Cemco’s favour. The jury found KPSI, James A. Klein, and Serina Klein liable for willful induced infringement, and KPSI and Serina Klein additionally liable for fraudulent transfer. Cemco was awarded $798,356.16 in patent infringement damages against all four defendants, $300,000 for fraudulent transfer, and a further $2,600,735.93 in enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs — totalling over $3.7 million. A permanent injunction was entered barring defendants from making, selling, marketing, or providing technical support for the infringing intumescent products for the life of the four patents.
The 630-day timeline from filing to final judgment is notably efficient for a multi-patent, multi-defendant case involving both infringement and fraudulent transfer claims. The willfulness finding likely drove the enhanced damages award and suggests the court found KPSI’s conduct egregious. The fraudulent transfer claim against KPSI and Serina Klein is unusual in patent litigation and suggests Cemco believed assets were being shifted to frustrate enforcement — though the specific facts underlying that claim remain sealed in part. What the public record does not reveal is whether any settlement discussions occurred or whether post-judgment appeals are anticipated.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 630 days
630 days from filing to final judgment — resolved within two years at district court level
Jury verdict for Cemco: what the judgment means for both parties
Induced infringement: why all four defendants faced liability
The case turned on induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b): KPSI did not merely sell a product — it actively instructed customers how to install FRG products in fire-rated assemblies covered by Cemco’s patents. Individual Klein defendants were held personally liable alongside the corporate entity, a significant result that pierces typical corporate insulation. Willfulness elevated the exposure to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
Induced + willful infringementCemco gains total market exclusion for the life of four patents
The permanent injunction is comprehensive: it bars KPSI from manufacturing, selling, advertising, providing UL certifications, or offering technical support for the infringing intumescent products. Defendants were also required to remove all third-party safety certifications from websites and notify customers by 7 March 2025. Combined with the $3.7M+ award, Cemco has effectively removed a competitor and secured damages that likely exceed litigation costs — a strong deterrent outcome.
Permanent injunction enteredKPSI and Klein family face market exit and personal liability
KPSI faces a permanent ban from the fire-rated head-of-wall market. More unusually, three individual Klein family members bear personal liability for infringement damages and, in the case of James A. Klein and Serina Klein, enhanced damages and fees. Serina Klein’s additional fraudulent transfer liability signals the court found asset-shielding conduct. The defendants must notify all customers of the injunction — a reputational and commercial harm compounding the financial award.
Personal liability for individualsA high-deterrence precedent for building systems IP enforcement
This case signals that fireblock and intumescent product manufacturers face serious exposure if they actively instruct customers to install products in patented configurations — even if the end-users are the direct infringers. The breadth of the injunction, covering UL listings and third-party certifications, sets a template for how patent holders in the building systems sector can use ancillary market access barriers as enforcement leverage. Competitors should audit installation guides, certification claims, and training materials.
Sector-wide deterrence signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Cemco, LLC | Company | Fire-rated building systems manufacturer — holder of US8151526B2 and three related fireblock patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Cemco, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Kpsi Innovations, Inc. | Company | KPSI Innovations Inc., maker of competing FRG intumescent head-of-wall products, and three Klein individualsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | James A. Klein | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Kevin Klein | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Serina Klein | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dylan C. Dang | Attorney | Counsel for Cemco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Francis Wong | Attorney | Counsel for Cemco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Douglas Swanson | Attorney | Counsel for Cemco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | R. Joseph Trojan | Attorney | Counsel for Cemco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | BALLARD SPAHR LLP (SEA) | Law Firm | Representing Cemco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Trojan Law Offices | Law Firm | Representing Cemco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adam M. Starr | Attorney | Counsel for Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chad Colton | Attorney | Counsel for Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Josephine C Kovacs | Attorney | Counsel for Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick C. Bageant | Attorney | Counsel for Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas E. Loop | Attorney | Counsel for Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hollystone Law | Law Firm | Representing Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Loop Intellectual Property Law | Law Firm | Representing Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Markowitz Herbold PC | Law Firm | Representing Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge James L. Robart | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The judgment is unusually broad in scope: it combines a jury-determined infringement award, a willfulness finding against three defendants, a separate fraudulent transfer verdict, and an enhanced damages order entered post-verdict by the court. The willfulness finding under Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics is significant — it required the jury to find KPSI’s infringement was deliberate or consciously reckless, which in turn enabled the court to award enhanced damages up to three times the base award under 35 U.S.C. § 284. The permanent injunction’s extension to certification materials and customer communications is particularly notable and suggests the court viewed KPSI’s market conduct holistically rather than limiting relief to the product alone.
US8151526B2, US8136314B2, US7814718B2 & US7681365B2 — Head-of-Wall Fireblock Patents
The four asserted patents — US8151526B2, US8136314B2, US7814718B2, and US7681365B2 — cover fire-rated head-of-wall constructions and intumescent fireblock systems used at the junction between wall assemblies and overhead structural elements. These patents address a critical passive fire protection requirement in commercial construction: sealing the deflection gap between the top of a partition wall and the ceiling or deck above to prevent the spread of fire and smoke. The application dates (2010 and 2008 series) place them at the heart of modern U.S. building code evolution.
The commercial significance of this patent family lies in its alignment with UL certification pathways and building code compliance requirements. Products in this space must carry recognised third-party certifications to be specified by architects and contractors — which is why the injunction’s prohibition on KPSI referencing UL listings is commercially devastating. Any intumescent product manufacturer seeking to enter the head-of-wall market in the U.S. must navigate this patent family, particularly given the permanent injunction now in force.
Should you run an FTO against US8151526B2 and its related fireblock patents?
If your company manufactures, imports, or distributes intumescent strip products, head-of-wall fireblock assemblies, or related passive fire protection components for use in U.S. commercial construction, this patent family directly affects your freedom to operate. The permanent injunction makes it clear that not just the product but also installation guidance, UL certification claims, and technical support materials are within the scope of enforceable rights. Any new entrant or existing player in this space should treat an FTO analysis as mandatory before market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of all four Cemco patents against your product specifications and identify whether your design or installation approach falls within the claims as construed in this litigation. Eureka can also surface related patent families, lapsed continuations, and prior art that may support design-around strategies or validity challenges — giving your R&D and legal teams actionable intelligence before your next product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8151526B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: fire-rated building systems & intumescent products
Explore related patent infringement cases involving intumescent fireblock systems, passive fire protection products, and head-of-wall assemblies litigated in U.S. district courts.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Head-of-wall fireblock systems and related wall assemblies-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedCemco, LLC’s broader IP enforcement history
Cemco, LLC’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the fire-rated building systems IP landscape
Cemco’s sweeping win raises the bar for competitors in the intumescent and fireblock product space across the U.S.
Instruction materials and UL certifications are litigation targets
The injunction explicitly covers installation videos, pamphlets, websites, UL listings, and engineering judgments. Any competitor whose go-to-market strategy involves active installation guidance for fire-rated assemblies is now on notice: those materials can constitute inducement evidence and form the basis of an injunction stretching beyond the product itself.
Individual officers face personal exposure in IP enforcement actions
James A. Klein, Kevin Klein, and Serina Klein were all held personally liable. This outcome — rare but increasingly pursued — suggests courts will pierce corporate structures when key individuals direct infringing conduct. In-house counsel advising founders and executives in competitive IP landscapes should assess personal risk alongside entity-level risk.
Fraudulent transfer claims can compound patent enforcement strategy
Cemco’s successful fraudulent transfer claim against KPSI and Serina Klein added $300,000 in damages and signals a broader enforcement toolkit available to patent holders who suspect asset dissipation. This combination of IP and commercial litigation is a growing enforcement pattern worth monitoring for fire-rated and construction materials sectors.
Four-patent portfolio depth drove negotiating leverage and injunction breadth
Asserting four related patents covering different claims of the same product family gave Cemco layered infringement grounds that made design-arounds difficult during litigation. Building dense patent families around core construction technology — particularly when UL-certified — creates durable exclusion zones that single patents cannot achieve.
Cemco v Kpsi — key questions answered
Cemco asserted four U.S. patents: US8151526B2, US8136314B2, US7814718B2, and US7681365B2. All four cover fire-rated head-of-wall fireblock systems and intumescent assemblies used to seal deflection gaps in commercial wall construction. The jury found KPSI liable for induced infringement of these patents.
The court awarded Cemco $798,356.16 in patent infringement damages against all four defendants, $300,000 for fraudulent transfer against KPSI and Serina Klein, and $2,600,735.93 in enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs against KPSI, James A. Klein, and Serina Klein. Total monetary relief exceeded $3.7 million.
All three Klein individuals were named defendants and found liable for induced patent infringement. James A. Klein and Serina Klein were additionally found liable for willful infringement and subject to enhanced damages. Serina Klein and KPSI were further found liable for fraudulent transfer. Personal liability in patent cases typically arises when individuals actively direct or control the infringing conduct rather than acting purely as passive corporate officers.
The permanent injunction bars defendants from making, selling, or offering the FRG intumescent products for fire-rated head-of-wall applications for the life of the patents. It also prohibits providing installation instructions, referencing UL or third-party safety certifications, displaying such certifications, transferring certification data files, and providing technical or engineering support for the infringing products. Defendants were required to notify all customers and remove certification materials by 7 March 2025.
Induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) occurs when a party actively encourages or instructs another party to directly infringe a patent. In Cemco v. KPSI, the jury found KPSI and the Klein defendants induced customers to install the FRG intumescent products in configurations covered by Cemco’s patents — through installation videos, training, and technical support. The willfulness finding indicates the inducement was knowing and deliberate, enabling enhanced damages.
Protect your position in the fire-rated building systems market
Run an FTO analysis against Cemco’s head-of-wall fireblock patent family before your next product launch or UL certification submission. Use PatSnap Eureka to monitor new enforcement actions and track claim scope changes across this patent portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.