Columbia Insurance & MiTek v. Simpson Strong-Tie: 6-Year Fire Hanger Patent Dispute Ends
Columbia Insurance Company and MiTek, Inc. asserted US10316510B2 — a patent covering structural fire wall hangers — against Simpson Strong-Tie’s DGF, DGHF, and DGBF product lines. After 2,297 days of litigation in the Northern District of California, all claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice by stipulation, with no award of fees or costs to either side.
A Six-Year Structural Patent Battle Ends Quietly by Stipulation
Filed in August 2019 in the Northern District of California, this case pitted Columbia Insurance Company and MiTek, Inc. — co-plaintiffs asserting rights under US10316510B2 — against Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc., one of the dominant players in structural connectors and building hardware. The patent at issue relates to fire wall hanger technology, and the accused products were Simpson’s DGF, DGHF, and DGBF model fire wall hangers — products sold widely in the residential and commercial construction market.
The case closed on November 25, 2025, through a joint stipulation filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and N.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-12. All claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning neither party may relitigate the same claims in a future action. Notably, the stipulation explicitly excluded any award of attorney fees or costs, suggesting the parties reached a negotiated resolution that balanced litigation risk without a formal damages determination.
The 2,297-day duration is striking for a case that ultimately resolved without a trial verdict. Extended timelines of this kind in N.D. Cal. patent cases frequently reflect protracted claim construction battles, inter partes review proceedings, or extended settlement negotiations — the public record does not confirm which factors dominated here. The mutual with-prejudice dismissal without fee shifting suggests neither party secured a clear upper hand, or that commercial interests drove a quiet resolution after years of parallel product competition.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 2297 days
6.3 years — notably long for a district court first-instance patent case
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice — permanent closure
A stipulated dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared. When combined with ‘with prejudice,’ it functions as a final adjudication on the merits — the plaintiffs are permanently barred from refiling the same patent claims against Simpson Strong-Tie based on the same accused products and the same patent, US10316510B2.
No refiling permittedMiTek and Columbia surrender future claims on these facts
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Columbia Insurance and MiTek permanently relinquish the right to reassert US10316510B2 against Simpson Strong-Tie’s DGF, DGHF, and DGBF hangers in any future action. Whether any licensing revenue, design-around commitment, or commercial arrangement underpins this exit is not apparent from the public record — the stipulation is silent on any separate settlement agreement.
Claims extinguishedSimpson Strong-Tie secures permanent freedom on accused products
Simpson Strong-Tie exits the litigation without any fee award against it and — critically — without any finding of infringement or validity ruling on US10316510B2. The with-prejudice dismissal prevents the same plaintiffs from suing again on the same facts, providing commercial certainty for its DGF, DGHF, and DGBF product lines going forward. However, the patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties.
Product line cleared — this dispute onlyUS10316510B2 remains live — other competitors still face exposure
Because the case ended by stipulation without any merits ruling, US10316510B2 has not been invalidated, narrowed, or found unenforceable. MiTek retains full enforcement rights against any other manufacturer of fire wall hanger products. Competitors operating in the structural connector space — particularly those making products functionally similar to the accused DGF/DGHF/DGBF models — should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk.
Patent still enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Columbia Insurance Company | Company | Building products IP holder — asserting US10316510B2 for structural fire wall hangersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Mitek, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. | Company | Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. — leading structural connector manufacturer, maker of accused 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 | Keith A Rabenberg | 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 | Daniel M. Poniatowski | Attorney | Counsel for Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Diego Benjamin Flores | Attorney | Counsel for Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc.Search 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 | DMP Law Corporation | Law Firm | Representing 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 stipulated verdict language — ‘dismiss all claims and counterclaims in this action with prejudice and without an award of fees or costs’ — is precise and bilateral. The explicit exclusion of fee shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 is notable: neither party sought to characterize the case as exceptional. The absence of any merits language means US10316510B2 carries no judicial validity or infringement findings from this proceeding, leaving its enforceability against third parties entirely intact.
US10316510B2 — Structural Fire Wall Hanger Technology
US10316510B2 (application number US16/225517) covers structural hanger technology specifically designed for fire wall applications in building construction. Fire wall hangers are load-bearing connectors that must maintain structural integrity during fire events, a performance requirement that differentiates them from standard joist or beam hangers. The patent’s technical claims likely address the geometry, material configuration, or installation interface that achieves the required fire-resistance rating while maintaining structural load capacity — a combination that has commercial significance in both residential and commercial construction compliance contexts.
In a market dominated by a small number of large structural connector manufacturers — including Simpson Strong-Tie, MiTek, and a handful of regional players — patents on specific product geometries can determine which company captures code-compliant specification opportunities. Fire wall hangers must typically satisfy International Building Code and local fire rating requirements, meaning a specification-preferred product can generate sustained, recurring revenue as contractors and engineers default to listed products. This makes US10316510B2 strategically significant well beyond its technical novelty.
Should your team run an FTO against US10316510B2?
Any manufacturer, private-label supplier, or importer of structural hangers intended for fire wall applications should treat US10316510B2 as an active risk. The case’s dismissal with prejudice protects only Simpson Strong-Tie’s DGF, DGHF, and DGBF products from re-suit by these specific plaintiffs — it provides zero clearance for any other party. R&D teams developing competing fire wall hanger geometries should document design-around rationale and obtain formal FTO opinions before launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10316510B2 against your product specifications, identify potentially overlapping claims, and surface any continuation or divisional applications that may extend the patent family’s coverage. Eureka also flags co-pending applications from the same assignee, giving product teams early warning of emerging patent risk in the structural connector space before prosecution concludes.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10316510B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: structural building component disputes in N.D. Cal.
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving structural building hardware and fire-rated connectors litigated in the Northern District of California.
What this case signals for the structural connector IP landscape
A six-year dispute ending silently by stipulation raises questions about patent enforceability, litigation economics, and competitive dynamics in structural building hardware.
With-prejudice exits without fee awards typically signal negotiated resolution
When sophisticated parties agree to dismiss with prejudice but waive fee claims, it is consistent with an underlying commercial arrangement — whether a licensing deal, cross-license, or design-around agreement. Patent practitioners should not treat this docket closure as evidence that US10316510B2 is weak; the patent was never adjudicated on the merits.
Long N.D. Cal. timelines increase settlement pressure for both sides
At 2,297 days, this case ran well beyond median patent case duration in the Northern District of California. Extended timelines inflate litigation cost for both plaintiffs and defendants, often making negotiated exits economically rational even where a party believes it has a strong position. This dynamic disproportionately benefits well-resourced defendants.
Columbia v Simpson — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on November 25, 2025. All claims and counterclaims were terminated with no award of attorney fees or costs to either party. The case lasted 2,297 days from filing in August 2019.
The patent asserted was US10316510B2 (application number US16/225517), covering structural fire wall hanger technology. The accused products were Simpson Strong-Tie’s DGF, DGHF, and DGBF model fire wall hangers sold in the residential and commercial construction market.
No. A stipulated dismissal with prejudice reflects only that the specific parties agreed to end their dispute permanently. The court made no ruling on the validity, enforceability, or infringement of US10316510B2. The patent remains in force and MiTek retains full rights to assert it against other parties.
Not on the same claims and accused products covered by this action. A with-prejudice dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) functions as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring the same plaintiffs from asserting the same patent against the same defendant regarding the same accused products. New products or new patents could theoretically give rise to a new action.
The public record does not specify the cause of the 2,297-day duration. Cases of this length in the Northern District of California typically involve extended claim construction proceedings, parallel USPTO review proceedings such as IPR, discovery disputes, or protracted settlement negotiations. The mutual waiver of fee claims suggests both parties viewed the litigation economics as justifying a negotiated exit rather than trial.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.