D’Acquisto v. Elevate Stand Co: Treestand Patent Settled in 70 Days
Inventor Andrae D’Acquisto filed suit against Elevate Stand Co, LLC in Kansas federal court alleging infringement of US12063925, a patent covering treestand technology, by the Element, Rize, and Ultra Treestand product lines. The parties reached a settlement within 70 days — and, unusually, secured court-retained jurisdiction to enforce its terms through the life of the patent.
A swift settlement with unusually durable court oversight
On September 11, 2024, inventor Andrae D’Acquisto filed a patent infringement action against Elevate Stand Co, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (Case No. 2:24-cv-02417). The complaint alleged that Elevate’s Element, Rize, and Ultra Treestand products infringed US Patent No. 12,063,925 — a recently issued patent covering treestand apparatus technology. D’Acquisto was represented by GM Law PC and Ryan, Kromholz & Manion, SC; Elevate was represented by Avek IP LLC.
The case closed on November 20, 2024, just 70 days after filing, following the parties’ execution of a settlement agreement on November 13, 2024. The court entered an Agreed Order of Dismissal with prejudice, meaning D’Acquisto cannot refile the same infringement claims. Notably, the court expressly retained jurisdiction — under the authority of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. — to enforce the settlement’s terms until the expiration of US12063925, a provision that gives the settlement agreement teeth beyond a standard dismissal.
The 70-day resolution is notably fast for patent litigation, suggesting the parties may have reached an agreement quickly once litigation pressure was applied — a pattern consistent with licensing-driven enforcement by individual inventors. The mutual cost-bearing provision is standard in settled patent cases. The public record does not disclose financial terms, royalty arrangements, or any product design changes required of Elevate Stand Co, leaving the commercial substance of the settlement undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 70 days
70 days — well below the median district court patent case duration of 2+ years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the settlement order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice locks the door on re-litigation
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — D’Acquisto cannot refile these infringement claims against Elevate for the same accused products under US12063925. Crucially, the court invoked Kokkonen jurisdiction, meaning the settlement agreement is incorporated into the court’s order and is judicially enforceable. Any future breach of settlement terms can be addressed via a motion in this court, not a new lawsuit.
Prejudice + Kokkonen retentionD’Acquisto secured court-backed enforcement through patent expiry
By obtaining court-retained jurisdiction until US12063925 expires, D’Acquisto gains a significant compliance lever. If Elevate breaches the settlement — for example, by resuming infringing activity or failing to make agreed payments — D’Acquisto can return to this court without filing a new case. The with-prejudice dismissal also suggests D’Acquisto obtained sufficient commercial resolution to close the litigation, consistent with a licensing or royalty arrangement, though terms are not public.
Lifetime patent enforcement retainedElevate resolves exposure but remains bound through patent life
Elevate Stand Co secured a final resolution of the infringement claims and avoids trial risk and ongoing litigation costs. However, the court’s retained jurisdiction means Elevate operates under a judicially supervised obligation for the remaining life of US12063925. The mutual cost-bearing provision suggests neither party paid the other’s legal fees, but the underlying commercial terms — including any product changes or royalties — remain confidential.
Settlement bound to patent expiryFast settlement signals active enforcement of recently issued treestand IP
US12063925 was recently issued, and the speed of this settlement — 70 days — suggests that litigation pressure from a newly granted patent can move defendants quickly toward resolution. For other treestand and hunting equipment manufacturers, this case signals that D’Acquisto is actively enforcing this patent. The retained jurisdiction structure is a model worth noting: it deters post-settlement non-compliance without requiring a new infringement action.
Active enforcement signal for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Andrae D’Acquisto | Individual | Independent inventor and patent holder — holder of US12063925B2 (treestand technology)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Elevate Stand Co, LLC | Company | Elevate Stand Co, LLC — manufacturer of hunting treestands including Element, Rize, and Ultra modelsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel R. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Andrae D’AcquistoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Phillip G. Greenfield | Attorney | Counsel for Andrae D’AcquistoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | GM Law PC (KC) | Law Firm | Representing Andrae D’AcquistoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ryan, Kromholz & Manion, SC – WI | Law Firm | Representing Andrae D’AcquistoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Hissan Anis | Attorney | Counsel for Elevate Stand Co, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marshall S. Honeyman | Attorney | Counsel for Elevate Stand Co, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Avek IP LLC | Law Firm | Representing Elevate Stand Co, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Kansas District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a negotiated resolution rather than a merits adjudication — no claim construction, validity ruling, or infringement finding was made. The operative language dismisses claims with prejudice and incorporates the settlement by reference, granting the court continuing supervisory power under Kokkonen. The phrase ‘until the expiration of US Patent No. 12,063,925’ signals the parties intend ongoing obligations tied to the patent’s commercial life, not merely a one-time payment.
US12063925B2 — Hunting Treestand Apparatus Technology
US Patent No. 12,063,925 (application number US16/602957) is a recently issued utility patent directed to hunting treestand technology. Treestands are mechanical platforms used by hunters to elevate themselves in trees for improved sightlines and concealment. The patent’s recency — and the rapid filing of litigation shortly after issuance — suggests D’Acquisto pursued prosecution with commercial enforcement in mind. The application number prefix (16/xxx) indicates filing in the 2019 timeframe, meaning prosecution spanned several years before grant.
The treestand market is a competitive segment of the outdoor sporting goods industry, with manufacturers competing on safety, weight, and ease of use. Three distinct Elevate product lines — the Element, Rize, and Ultra Treestands — were named as accused, suggesting the patent’s claims may cover a broad mechanical feature common across a product family rather than a single product-specific design. For competitors in this space, US12063925 represents active, enforced IP that should be evaluated in any FTO review prior to new product development or market entry.
Should you run an FTO against US12063925B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing hunting treestands — including climbing stands, hang-on stands, or ladder stands — should treat US12063925 as a live enforcement risk. The fact that three distinct Elevate product lines were named as accused suggests the patent’s claims may read broadly on common mechanical configurations. If your treestand product shares structural features with the Element, Rize, or Ultra product lines, a formal FTO analysis is warranted before US launch or retailer distribution.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map the claims of US12063925 against your current and pipeline product specifications — surfacing overlap risks before they become litigation exposure. Eureka can also identify prior art and related family members that may affect claim scope, and monitor for any continuation applications filed by D’Acquisto that could extend the patent family’s reach into adjacent treestand technology categories.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12063925B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar treestand and outdoor equipment patent cases in US district courts
Cases involving hunting equipment and treestand apparatus patents in US district courts, including fast-settling inventor-driven infringement actions like D’Acquisto v. Elevate Stand Co.
What this case signals for the hunting equipment IP landscape
A 70-day settlement with court-retained jurisdiction sets a clear precedent for how newly issued treestand patents may be enforced.
Newly issued patents can generate rapid commercial settlements
D’Acquisto filed suit shortly after US12063925 issued and resolved in under 75 days. This pattern — early enforcement of a freshly granted patent — is consistent with a licensing-first strategy. Competitors and adjacent manufacturers should treat newly issued patents in the hunting equipment space as immediate litigation risk, not deferred concern.
Kokkonen jurisdiction clauses extend patent holder leverage beyond dismissal
The court’s retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until patent expiry is a meaningful structural outcome for D’Acquisto. This avoids the cost and delay of filing a new breach-of-contract action if Elevate fails to comply — a model that other patent holders in product-focused enforcement should consider when negotiating settlement terms.
D’Acquisto v Elevate — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on November 20, 2024, following a settlement agreement executed on November 13, 2024. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement terms until US Patent No. 12,063,925 expires. Each party bore its own attorney’s fees and costs.
Three Elevate Stand Co products were named as accused: The Element Treestand, The Rize Treestand, and The Ultra Treestand. The settlement terms, including any required product changes or licensing arrangements, are not disclosed in the public record.
Under Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. (511 U.S. 375), a federal court may retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement if it expressly incorporates that agreement into its dismissal order. Here, the court did so, meaning Elevate Stand Co’s compliance obligations are judicially enforceable through the life of US12063925 without D’Acquisto needing to file a new lawsuit for breach of contract.
Yes. Because the case settled before any claim construction or invalidity ruling, US12063925 retains its full statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. No court has ruled on the patent’s scope or validity. The patent remains an active enforcement risk for other treestand manufacturers.
The case resolved in 70 days from filing (September 11, 2024) to closure (November 20, 2024). This is significantly faster than the median patent case duration in US district courts, which typically exceeds two years. The speed suggests the parties reached commercial agreement shortly after litigation was initiated.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.