Columbia Insurance & MiTek v. Simpson Strong-Tie: Fire Wall Hanger Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Columbia Insurance Company and MiTek Inc. brought a patent infringement action against Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. in the Northern District of California, asserting US11920339B2 over the defendant’s DGF/DGHF/DGBF Fire Wall Hangers. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal with prejudice after 627 days — with no award of fees or costs to either side.
Structural connector patent battle ends in mutual walk-away
On March 15, 2024, Columbia Insurance Company and MiTek Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:24-cv-01652). The plaintiffs asserted US11920339B2 — a patent covering fire wall hanger technology — against Simpson Strong-Tie’s DGF, DGHF, and DGBF Fire Wall Hanger product lines. Both plaintiffs and the defendant are active participants in the structural building connector and construction hardware market, making this a direct competitor dispute.
The case closed on December 2, 2025, via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and N.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-12. Dismissal with prejudice means the plaintiffs are permanently barred from re-filing the same infringement claims against Simpson Strong-Tie based on these patents and accused products. Notably, the stipulation expressly excluded any award of attorneys’ fees or costs to either party, suggesting a negotiated resolution where neither side sought to extract additional financial concessions.
The 627-day duration — from filing through stipulated dismissal — is consistent with cases that proceed through early discovery or claim construction before resolving. The mutual agreement to forego fees and costs, combined with the with-prejudice designation, suggests the parties likely reached a commercial resolution (such as a license or cross-license) that they chose not to disclose publicly. The precise terms of any underlying commercial arrangement remain absent from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 627 days
627 days from filing to stipulated dismissal — slightly above average for N.D. Cal. patent cases resolved short of trial
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal — what it means
A stipulated dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties and is filed jointly. When entered with prejudice, the court treats the dismissed claims as finally adjudicated — the plaintiff cannot refile the same claims against the same defendant. This is legally equivalent to a judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, foreclosing any future litigation on these specific patents and accused products.
Permanent bar on refilingPlaintiffs trade litigation rights for certainty — likely with commercial consideration
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Columbia Insurance and MiTek permanently surrendered their right to sue Simpson Strong-Tie on US11920339B2 regarding the DGF/DGHF/DGBF Fire Wall Hangers. This is a significant concession unless offset by an undisclosed license, royalty agreement, or product design undertaking. The absence of a fee award to plaintiffs suggests they did not achieve a litigation ‘win’ in the conventional sense, but the commercial terms — if any — remain confidential.
Rights extinguished — possible licenseSimpson Strong-Tie secures permanent dismissal with no cost exposure
For Simpson Strong-Tie, the outcome is defensively strong: all claims and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice, and no fees or costs were awarded against them. The defendant faces no ongoing litigation risk from these plaintiffs on US11920339B2 for the accused products. Whether Simpson Strong-Tie agreed to modify its products, pay a lump sum, or take a license as part of the resolution is not disclosed in the public record.
No cost liability, permanent closureStructural connector sector: patent enforcement risk persists around fire wall technology
US11920339B2 remains in force and was not invalidated through this proceeding. Competitors and new entrants in the fire wall hanger and structural connector space should treat the patent as enforceable. The willingness of Columbia Insurance and MiTek to litigate for over 627 days before settling signals a credible enforcement posture. Other manufacturers of fire wall hanger products face potential exposure if their designs read on the claims of this patent.
Patent remains live and enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Columbia Insurance Company | Company | Construction hardware IP holding entity and structural connector manufacturer — holder of US11920339B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Mitek, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. | Company | Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. — structural connector and building hardware manufacturer, maker of DGF/DGHF/DGBF Fire Wall HangersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | B. Scott Eidson | Attorney | Counsel for Columbia Insurance CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Duane H. Mathiowetz | Attorney | Counsel for Columbia Insurance CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Robert Schroeder | Attorney | Counsel for Columbia Insurance CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Judith Samilda Araujo | Attorney | Counsel for Columbia Insurance CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julie C. Scheipeter | Attorney | Counsel for Columbia Insurance CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zachary T. Buchheit | Attorney | Counsel for Columbia Insurance CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Practus LLP | Law Firm | Representing Columbia Insurance CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Stinson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Columbia Insurance CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erick Charles Howard | Attorney | Counsel for Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Vincent Mauch | Attorney | Counsel for Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lindsay Anne van Keulen | Attorney | Counsel for Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shartsis Friese LLP | Law Firm | Representing Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation explicitly invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and N.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-12, signalling a fully consensual procedural exit. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal term: it forecloses any future action by these plaintiffs on the same claims against Simpson Strong-Tie. The express exclusion of fees and costs in the same sentence suggests careful negotiation — neither party wanted to create a financial record that might imply fault or admission. The scope of the dismissal covers ‘all claims and counterclaims,’ meaning any defensive counterclaims by Simpson Strong-Tie (e.g., invalidity, non-infringement) are also extinguished.
US11920339B2 — Structural fire wall hanger connectors for building construction
US11920339B2 (application number US18/112843) is a utility patent protecting fire wall hanger technology — structural connectors designed to support framing members at fire-rated wall assemblies in building construction. Fire wall hangers are load-bearing hardware components that must meet strict building code requirements for fire resistance. The patent’s issuance as a B2 grant indicates it underwent examination with prior art references, and the claims define a specific structural configuration that distinguishes it from earlier connector designs.
In the structural connector market, Simpson Strong-Tie and MiTek are among the most significant competitors — making this a direct head-to-head IP dispute over a product category governed by building codes and fire safety standards. A patent covering fire wall hanger geometry or attachment methodology can effectively determine which manufacturers can supply code-compliant hardware to construction projects. The fact that this patent was asserted against three specific product lines (DGF, DGHF, DGBF) suggests the claims are targeted rather than broad, but the enforcement posture demonstrates the patent holder’s intent to protect market share in a safety-critical category.
Should you run an FTO against US11920339B2?
Any manufacturer, distributor, or OEM supplying fire wall hanger products, joist hangers, or structural connectors for fire-rated wall assemblies should treat US11920339B2 as an active enforcement risk. The patent was asserted against Simpson Strong-Tie’s DGF, DGHF, and DGBF product lines — three distinct SKU families — suggesting the claims cover a range of hanger configurations. If your product portfolio includes fire wall hanger hardware or structurally similar connectors, an FTO analysis is warranted before product launch or market expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US11920339B2’s claim scope against your product specifications, identify related continuations or family members, and surface prior art that could support a design-around or validity challenge. Given that this patent survived litigation without an invalidity ruling, Eureka’s claim chart generation and prosecution history analysis tools are particularly valuable for assessing whether your specific hanger geometry falls within the asserted claims — and where design freedom exists.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11920339B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar structural connector and fire wall hanger patent cases in N.D. Cal.
Cases involving structural connector and fire wall hanger patent disputes in the Northern District of California, including infringement actions by building hardware manufacturers.
What this case signals for the structural connector IP landscape
A with-prejudice stipulated dismissal with no fee award is a pattern that typically signals a private commercial resolution — not a plaintiff retreat.
With-prejudice dismissals without fee awards often mask licensing deals
When both parties jointly agree to dismiss with prejudice and explicitly waive fees and costs, the most commercially rational explanation is an undisclosed settlement — potentially a license, royalty stream, or design-around agreement. Patent practitioners advising fire wall hardware companies should treat this outcome as a signal that US11920339B2 carries real commercial leverage.
US11920339B2 was never invalidated — enforcement risk remains live
No IPR petition, inter partes review, or invalidity ruling is reflected in the public case record. The patent survived this litigation intact. Structural connector manufacturers and building hardware OEMs whose products include fire wall hanger functionality should conduct an FTO analysis against US11920339B2 before commercialising competing designs.
Columbia v Simpson — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation on December 2, 2025, under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims and counterclaims were terminated permanently with no award of attorneys’ fees or costs to either party. The case lasted 627 days from filing to dismissal.
The plaintiffs asserted US11920339B2 (application number US18/112843), a patent covering fire wall hanger structural connector technology. The accused products were Simpson Strong-Tie’s DGF, DGHF, and DGBF Fire Wall Hanger product lines sold into the building construction market.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Columbia Insurance and MiTek from re-filing the same infringement claims against Simpson Strong-Tie based on US11920339B2 for the DGF/DGHF/DGBF products. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties, but these specific plaintiffs cannot revive this action or file a materially identical suit against this defendant.
The public record does not confirm a settlement, but the pattern — stipulated dismissal with prejudice, express waiver of fees and costs, and no publicly filed consent judgment — is consistent with cases where parties reach a private commercial resolution. This could include a license, royalty agreement, or design-around undertaking, but the specific terms are not disclosed in the court record.
Yes. The dismissal was procedural and consensual — there was no invalidity ruling, no IPR outcome, and no judicial finding on the merits of the patent claims. US11920339B2 remains an issued, enforceable patent. Competitors in the fire wall hanger and structural connector market should continue to treat it as a live enforcement risk and conduct FTO analysis before commercialising products in this category.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.