DuraSystems v. Van-Packer: $905K Verdict in Fire Duct Patent Case

Introduction

In a closely watched patent infringement dispute spanning more than six years, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois entered judgment ordering Van-Packer Co. and Jeremias, Inc. to pay $905,000 to DuraSystems Barriers, Inc. — a Canadian manufacturer of fire-rated duct systems — in a case that underscores the commercial and legal stakes surrounding specialty HVAC and passive fire protection technology patents.

Filed on December 3, 2019, DuraSystems Barriers, Inc. v. Van-Packer, Co. (Case No. 1:19-cv-01388) centered on two U.S. patents covering fire-rated exhaust duct technology. The accused products — Van-Packer’s Model GRZ and the Jeremias Model DWGD-RZ — competed directly with DuraSystems’ flagship DuraDuct KEX system in the commercial kitchen exhaust and grease duct market.

For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in the fire protection and HVAC sector, this verdict signals that courts will enforce narrowly drawn utility patents protecting functional building system innovations — and that multi-defendant litigation strategies carry meaningful damages exposure.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

This landmark case involved two utility patents covering fire-rated exhaust duct technology. Utility patents protect functional innovations rather than ornamental design, registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

• • US 10,024,569 B2 — Fire-rated duct barrier system technology
• • US 9,976,768 B2 — Related fire-rated duct construction and assembly methods

The Accused Products

DuraSystems alleged that Van-Packer’s Model GRZ and Jeremias’s Model DWGD-RZ grease duct systems infringed one or both asserted patents. These products compete directly with DuraSystems’ DuraDuct KEX in the commercial construction supply chain, where fire-rated duct certification is a prerequisite for code-compliant installation.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff: Matthew V. Topic of Loevy & Loevy (Chicago-based firm).

Defendants: Assembled a team across four firms: ASG Law LLC, K&L Gates LLP, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, and Venable LLP.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

DuraSystems filed its complaint in the Central District of Illinois on December 3, 2019 — a venue selection that placed the dispute before Chief Judge James E. Shadid, a senior jurist with broad civil docket experience in the district.

The case proceeded at the district court (first instance/trial level) and remained active for over six years, with the docket closing on February 17, 2026. This extended duration is characteristic of complex patent litigation involving multiple defendants, multi-patent assertions, and sophisticated technical subject matter requiring claim construction proceedings.

The prolonged timeline likely reflects standard patent litigation milestones: initial pleadings and service, Markman (claim construction) hearings to interpret disputed patent claim terms, fact and expert discovery phases, dispositive motion practice, and ultimately trial or dispositive resolution leading to the $905,000 damages judgment.

The defendants’ deployment of four law firms simultaneously signals aggressive multi-front defense — likely including validity challenges, non-infringement contentions, and potentially inter partes review (IPR) petitions at the USPTO, though specific PTAB proceedings are not confirmed in the available case data.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The court entered final judgment ordering: *”Plaintiff DuraSystems Barriers, Inc. recovers from Defendants Van-Packer Co. and Jeremias, Inc. the amount of $905,000.”*

This award represents a plaintiff’s verdict on the infringement action — DuraSystems successfully established that the accused GRZ and DWGD-RZ products infringed one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,024,569 B2 and/or 9,976,768 B2. The joint and several nature of the award against both Van-Packer and Jeremias reflects the court’s treatment of both entities as liable parties — a significant outcome given Jeremias’s product involvement.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The case was litigated as a direct patent infringement action under 35 U.S.C. § 271. With two asserted utility patents and two accused products across two defendant companies, the infringement analysis would have required the court to map specific patent claim elements to corresponding structural or functional features of the GRZ and DWGD-RZ duct systems.

In fire protection patent litigation, claim construction of technical terms — such as those defining insulation layers, fastener configurations, wall assemblies, or thermal performance thresholds — often determines outcome. DuraSystems’ success suggests its claim terms survived favorable construction or that the accused products’ designs were sufficiently close to the literal claim language to sustain infringement findings.

The defendants’ four-firm legal team indicates substantial resources were directed at validity challenges. However, the damages award implies the patents survived those challenges — whether through court ruling, failed IPR petitions, or strategic litigation decisions.

Legal Significance

The $905,000 damages figure, while not representing the highest-profile patent verdict, carries meaningful precedential weight in the fire-rated duct and passive fire protection technology sector — a niche market where a handful of competitors compete for commercial construction contracts governed by UL 2221 and similar standards.

For patent holders in specialty building systems technology, this outcome validates asserting utility patents protecting system-level innovations even in technically narrow markets. Courts will conduct rigorous claim construction and damages analysis regardless of market size.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The fire-rated grease duct market serves commercial kitchens, industrial facilities, and high-rise construction — sectors where building code compliance and UL certification create substantial switching costs and brand loyalty. Patent protection in this space functions as a meaningful competitive moat.

This verdict signals to market participants that DuraSystems is prepared to enforce its patent portfolio aggressively. Competitors with products in the grease duct or fire-rated enclosure space should audit their designs against both U.S. Patent Nos. 10,024,569 B2 and 9,976,768 B2 immediately.

More broadly, the case reflects an industry-wide trend of specialty building systems manufacturers using utility patents — not just trade secrets or first-mover advantage — to protect technical innovations that achieve UL listing and code compliance. As building codes evolve and new fire protection technologies emerge, patent filings in this sector are likely to increase.

For licensing professionals, this verdict establishes a damages benchmark of $905,000 for dual-patent infringement across two competing product lines — useful data for royalty negotiations and licensing term structuring in comparable technology spaces.