Cohn v. MultiScan Technologies: Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed in 17 Days
Avner Cohn appealed a sorting-system patent infringement action against MultiScan Technologies USA LLC to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asserting US9676004B2. The appeal was dismissed by agreement of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) in just 17 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
A rapid Federal Circuit exit: agreed dismissal before any merits review
Avner Cohn filed Federal Circuit appeal No. 25-1668 on 22 April 2025, challenging an earlier outcome in an infringement action concerning US9676004B2 — a patent covering automated sorting system technology — against MultiScan Technologies USA LLC. Cohn was represented by Stuart Leijon of Chernoff Vilhauer LLP; MultiScan by Kurt M. Rylander of Rylander & Associates PC. The appeal was docketed in the District of Columbia circuit region.
The proceeding closed on 9 May 2025 — just 17 days after filing — when the Federal Circuit issued an order under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) dismissing the appeal at the parties’ joint request. No opinion on the merits was issued. The cost order was neutral: each side bears its own costs, suggesting neither party secured a clear concession that would typically shift fees.
A 17-day lifespan is exceptionally short even for agreed Federal Circuit dismissals, suggesting the parties had reached (or were close to reaching) a resolution before the appeal was formally filed, or that a pre-briefing settlement was finalised immediately after docketing. The public record does not disclose any underlying settlement terms, licence arrangement, or whether the district court judgment stands unmodified. What drove the rapid agreement — whether business settlement, licence, or strategic withdrawal — remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 17 days
17 days — among the shortest Federal Circuit appeal durations on record; consistent with a negotiated resolution reached before merits briefing began
Appeal dismissed by agreement: what Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): a consent-based exit with no merits ruling
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows parties to voluntarily dismiss an appeal by filing a signed agreement or on motion. The Federal Circuit issued no opinion on the patent’s validity, infringement, or claim scope. The underlying district court record — whatever it found — is not displaced by this order. The dismissal is procedural, not substantive.
No merits adjudicationCohn withdraws the appeal — district outcome likely stands
By agreeing to dismiss, appellant Avner Cohn abandoned the appeal before the Federal Circuit could review the lower decision. Unless a separate settlement modified the district court judgment, any adverse ruling below presumptively remains in effect. The public record does not disclose whether Cohn received any compensating consideration — licence fees, design-around commitments, or other commercial terms — in exchange for the withdrawal.
Appeal withdrawnMultiScan avoids Federal Circuit scrutiny of the lower ruling
MultiScan Technologies secured dismissal without any appellate review of US9676004B2’s scope or validity. If the district court ruled in MultiScan’s favour, that outcome is preserved. The mutual cost order — each side bears its own — is consistent with a negotiated resolution and does not signal a concession by either party. MultiScan’s exposure to the sorting-system patent at appellate level has effectively closed.
Appellate exposure closedSorting-system IP landscape: no new precedent created
Because the Federal Circuit issued no opinion, US9676004B2 emerges from this proceeding without any authoritative appellate construction of its claims. Competitors and licensees in the automated sorting and industrial inspection space cannot rely on this dismissal as guidance on validity or infringement. The patent remains a live enforcement risk unless the underlying district disposition resolved those questions definitively.
No claim construction precedentFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AVNER COHN | Individual | Individual patent holder — inventor and holder of US9676004B2 covering sorting system technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | MULTISCAN TECHNOLOGIES USA LLC | Company | MultiScan Technologies USA LLC — company operating in automated sorting and inspection systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stuart Leijon | Attorney | Counsel for AVNER COHNSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Chernoff Vilhauer LLP | Law Firm | Representing AVNER COHNSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kurt M. Rylander | Attorney | Counsel for MULTISCAN TECHNOLOGIES USA LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Rylander & Associates PC | Law Firm | Representing MULTISCAN TECHNOLOGIES USA LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order is strictly procedural: it records consent of the parties and invokes Rule 42(b) to close the docket, expressly declining to reach the merits of the infringement action below. The mutual cost order — each side bears its own — is the court’s only substantive disposition. This phrasing is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a concession of liability, though the public record does not confirm what, if any, commercial terms were exchanged alongside the agreed dismissal.
US9676004B2 — Automated sorting system apparatus and methods
US9676004B2 (application no. US14/934638) is a granted US utility patent covering automated sorting system technology — apparatus and methods for classifying and routing objects in industrial settings. The patent’s grant designation (B2) indicates it was published with amended claims following examination. The application number sequence places it in a mid-2010s filing cohort, a period of significant investment in vision-based and sensor-driven industrial sorting for food processing, recycling, and manufacturing quality-control applications.
For competitors in the automated sorting and inspection equipment market — including players in food-grade sorters, recycling-stream classifiers, and manufacturing QC systems — US9676004B2 represents a potentially broad enforcement asset. Because neither the district court’s claim construction nor any Federal Circuit analysis has been published in connection with this litigation, the exact scope of protectable subject matter is not publicly resolved. Companies designing or selling sorting apparatus should assess whether their implementations overlap with the independent claims of this patent before entering or expanding in the relevant product categories.
Should your sorting-system product be assessed against US9676004B2?
R&D and product teams developing automated sorting, classification, or object-routing equipment — particularly in food processing, recycling, or industrial QC — should evaluate their technology against US9676004B2. This case closed without any appellate claim construction, meaning the patent’s enforceable scope has not been judicially narrowed. The absence of a merits ruling preserves the patent holder’s full enforcement posture against future targets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US9676004B2 against your product’s technical architecture, identify prior art that may narrow or invalidate key claims, and surface related family members or continuations that could extend coverage. Given the unresolved claim scope in this case, a structured FTO assessment is a prudent step before product launch or market expansion in the automated sorting space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9676004B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in industrial automation patent disputes
Explore comparable Federal Circuit appeal dismissals and infringement actions involving industrial sorting, inspection, and automation patents in similar technology domains.
What this case signals for the sorting-system patent IP landscape
A 17-day Federal Circuit dismissal with mutual cost-bearing typically signals a private resolution — and leaves the underlying patent’s enforceability unresolved.
No appellate precedent: US9676004B2 claim scope remains judicially undefined
The Federal Circuit’s Rule 42(b) dismissal produced zero published guidance on US9676004B2’s claims. Any company operating in the automated sorting or object-inspection space should treat this patent as having unresolved enforcement potential. A freedom-to-operate analysis remains essential.
Rapid dismissal pattern: watch for renewed district-level or IPR activity
When Federal Circuit appeals collapse this quickly — 17 days — it often reflects a side-agreement that may include licensing terms or design-around commitments. Monitor USPTO assignment records and any new district filings referencing US9676004B2 for signals of how the underlying dispute was resolved.
COHN v MULTISCAN — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit dismissed appeal No. 25-1668 on 9 May 2025 — just 17 days after filing — under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) at the parties’ agreement. The appeal concerned a patent infringement action over US9676004B2, a sorting-system patent. No merits opinion was issued. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs.
A Rule 42(b) dismissal is purely procedural: it closes the appellate docket at the parties’ joint request without any ruling on validity, infringement, or claim scope. The underlying district court record is not altered by the dismissal. For US9676004B2, this means the patent’s enforceability was not reviewed or limited by the Federal Circuit in this proceeding.
The dismissal of the Federal Circuit appeal does not extinguish US9676004B2 or render it unenforceable. No invalidity finding was made. The patent remains a potential enforcement tool subject to the underlying district outcome. Companies in the sorting and industrial automation space should conduct an FTO assessment rather than assume the dismissal resolved scope questions.
A 17-day resolution is consistent with the parties having reached a private agreement — potentially a licence, settlement, or strategic withdrawal — before or immediately after the appeal was filed. The mutual cost order (each side bears own costs) supports a negotiated rather than conceded exit. The specific commercial terms, if any, are not disclosed in the public court record.
Avner Cohn (appellant) was represented by Stuart Leijon of Chernoff Vilhauer LLP. MultiScan Technologies USA LLC (appellee) was represented by Kurt M. Rylander of Rylander & Associates PC. The case was filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 22 April 2025 and closed on 9 May 2025.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.