Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Cemco v. KPSI Innovations: Fire-Rated Wall Patent Win | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID2:23-cv-00918
FiledJun 2023
ClosedMar 2025
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
630days
630 days from filing to final judgment — resolved within two years at district court level
Patents asserted
4
US8151526B2, US8136314B2, US7814718B2 and US7681365B2 — four fire-rated head-of-wall fireblock system patents asserted
Outcome
Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff
Jury verdict for Cemco; willful induced infringement and fraudulent transfer found against all defendants
Cost ruling
Fees Awarded
$2.6M enhanced damages, fees & costs awarded on top of $798K infringement damages
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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.

Case at a glance
Case no.2:23-cv-00918
PlaintiffCemco, LLC
CourtWashington Western
JudgeJames L. Robart
FiledJune 16, 2023
ClosedMarch 7, 2025
Duration630 days
OutcomeJudgment on the merits for Plaintiff
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisJudgment on the merits for Plaintiff
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Washington Western District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

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

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUN 16 2023, APR–MAY — 630 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Cemco, LLC v Kpsi Innovations, Inc. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Washington Western District Court. JUN 16 2023 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings MAR 7 2025 Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff 630 DAYS TOTAL
Court ruling

Jury verdict for Cemco: what the judgment means for both parties

Legal mechanism

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 infringement
Patent holder outcome

Cemco 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 entered
Defendant outcome

KPSI 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 individuals
Commercial implications

A 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 signal
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 2:23-cv-00918 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffCemco, LLCCompanyFire-rated building systems manufacturer — holder of US8151526B2 and three related fireblock patentsSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-PlaintiffCemco, LLCCompanySearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantKpsi Innovations, Inc.CompanyKPSI Innovations Inc., maker of competing FRG intumescent head-of-wall products, and three Klein individualsSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantJames A. KleinIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantKevin KleinIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantSerina KleinIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDylan C. DangAttorneyCounsel for Cemco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselFrancis WongAttorneyCounsel for Cemco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselPaul Douglas SwansonAttorneyCounsel for Cemco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselR. Joseph TrojanAttorneyCounsel for Cemco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmBALLARD SPAHR LLP (SEA)Law FirmRepresenting Cemco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmTrojan Law OfficesLaw FirmRepresenting Cemco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAdam M. StarrAttorneyCounsel for Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselChad ColtonAttorneyCounsel for Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJosephine C KovacsAttorneyCounsel for Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselPatrick C. BageantAttorneyCounsel for Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselThomas E. LoopAttorneyCounsel for Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmHollystone LawLaw FirmRepresenting Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmLoop Intellectual Property LawLaw FirmRepresenting Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmMarkowitz Herbold PCLaw FirmRepresenting Kpsi Innovations, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge James L. RobartJudgeWashington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff CEMCO, LLC (“CEMCO”) and against Defendants KPSI Innovation, Inc. (“KPSI”), James A. Klein, Serina Klein, and Kevin Klein for induced patent infringement. (8/13/24 Order (Dkt. # 111); Jury Verdict (Dkt. ## 213 (sealed), 214 (unsealed)).) The induced infringement by KPSI, James A. Klein, and Serina Klein, was willful. (Jury Verdict.) 2. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of CEMCO and against Defendants KPSI and Serina Klein for fraudulent transfer. (Id.) 3. CEMCO is AWARDED damages of $798,356.16 against Defendants KPSI, James A. Klein, Serina Klein, and Kevin Klein for induced patent infringement. (2/28/25 Order (Dkt. # 246); see also Jury Verdict.) 4. CEMCO is AWARDED damages of $300,000.00 against Defendants KPSI and Serina Klein for fraudulent transfer. (Jury Verdict.)CEMCO is AWARDED enhanced damages, fees, and costs of $2,600,735.93 against Defendants KPSI, James A. Klein, and Serina Klein. (2/28/25 Order.) 6. For the life of the Patents, Defendants are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from: a. Making, using, offering to sell, or selling FRG Products or any product that is not more than colorably different from FRG Products (the “Intumescent Products”) for use in fire-rated head-of-wall constructions or assemblies as covered by the claims of the Patents; b. Providing instructions in any medium (e.g., videos, in-person training, pamphlets, brochures, installation instructions, websites, and invoices) for using the Intumescent Products in fire-rated head-of-wall constructions or assemblies as covered by the claims of the Patents; c. Referencing certifications from any third-party agency related to fire-safety or building code compliance, including but not limited to UL listings (collectively, “Third-Party Safety Certification”), concerning the Intumescent Products used for fire-rated head-of-wall constructions or assemblies as covered by the claims of the Patents, in any advertising or communications with customers or prospective customers; d. Displaying or disseminating any Third-Party Safety Certification concerning the Intumescent Products used for fire-rated head-of-wall constructions or assemblies as covered by the claims of the Patents, in any medium (e.g., videos, in-person training, pamphlets, brochures, installation instructions, websites, and invoices); e. Transferring or facilitating the transfer of any Third-Party Safety Certification or data files associated therewith concerning the Intumescent Products used for fire-rated head-of-wall constructions or assemblies as covered by the claims of the Patents, to any person or entity; f. Modifying or submitting any proposal for modifying any Third-Party Safety Certification, where the modification depicts, describes, or references using the Intumescent Products for fire-rated head-of-wall constructions or assemblies as covered by the claims of the Patents; g. Creating or facilitating the creation of any Third-Party Safety Certification that depicts, describes, or references using the Intumescent Products for fire-rated head-of-wall constructions or assemblies as covered by the claims of the Patents; and Providing technical support, including engineering judgments, for Intumescent Products used for fire-rated head-of-wall constructions or assemblies as covered by the claims of the Patents. (2/28/25 Permanent Injunction (Dkt. # 247).) 7. By March 7, 2025, Defendants SHALL: a. Remove any Third-Party Safety Certification that depicts, describes, or references the use of the Intumescent Products for fire-rated head-of-wall constructions or assemblies as covered by the claims of the Patents from their websites and all advertising materials; b. Send a notice of removal for each Third-Party Safety Certification that depicts, describes, or references the use of the Intumescent Products for fire-rated head-of-wall constructions or assemblies as covered by the claims of the Patents; and c. Send a copy of the permanent injunction order (Dkt. # 247) to each of their customers.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 2:23-cv-00918, Washington Western District Court

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.

PACER case 2:23-cv-00918 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US8151526B2, US8136314B2, US7814718B2 & US7681365B2 — Head-of-Wall Fireblock Patents

Publication No.US8151526B2
Application No.US12/727081
Patent details
ProductFire-rated head-of-wall fireblock assembly construction
Cited in actionJune 16, 2023

Publication No.US8136314B2
Application No.US12/906846
Patent details
ProductHead-of-wall intumescent fireblock system with structural integration
Cited in actionJune 16, 2023

Publication No.US7814718B2
Application No.US12/727058
Patent details
ProductFire-rated wall assembly with intumescent gap-sealing components
Cited in actionJune 16, 2023

Publication No.US7681365B2
Application No.US12/098274
Patent details
ProductHead-of-wall deflection gap fireblock system
Cited in actionJune 16, 2023

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.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

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.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8151526B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Cemco, LLC patent enforcement history, Washington Western case history, Cemco, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Passive fire protection casesIntumescent product disputesBuilding systems injunctionsConstruction IP enforcement
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What 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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper analysis of fire-rated building systems IP enforcement trends at U.S. district court level, including patent family strategy and inducement doctrine risk.
Fraudulent transfer tacticsPortfolio layering strategyInjunction breadth analysis
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Cemco v Kpsi — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

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.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.