Experimental Propulsion Lab v. BAE Systems: Hypervelocity Projectile Patent Dismissed Without Prejudice
Experimental Propulsion Lab, LLC filed suit against defense contractor BAE Systems, Inc. in Delaware, asserting US9086033B2 covering extended range hypervelocity projectile technology including the Scorpio-XR and HVP device. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice just 108 days after filing, leaving the door open for refiling.
A rapid exit: patent assertion against BAE Systems ends before battle begins
On 22 November 2024, Experimental Propulsion Lab, LLC filed a patent infringement action against BAE Systems, Inc. in the District of Delaware before Judge Colm F. Connolly. The suit centered on US9086033B2, a patent covering extended range hypervelocity projectile technology. The accused products included BAE Systems’ Scorpio-XR, the Gun-Launched Guided Projectile, the Extended Range Hypervelocity Projectile, the precision-guided Hypervelocity Projectile (HVP device), and the XM1155-SC — a cluster of advanced precision munitions systems.
On 10 March 2025 — just 108 days after the complaint was filed — Experimental Propulsion Lab invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to voluntarily dismiss all claims without prejudice. Critically, the dismissal stipulated that each party would bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and expenses. A dismissal without prejudice means no final judgment on the merits was entered, and the plaintiff retains the legal right to refile the same claims against BAE Systems, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
The speed of resolution — before any responsive pleading or motion to dismiss was likely fully litigated — suggests the parties may have reached an early-stage understanding, or that the plaintiff reassessed its litigation strategy shortly after initiating proceedings. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, licensing arrangement, or technical stipulation. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with either a negotiated resolution or a unilateral strategic withdrawal, but the distinction cannot be confirmed from available filings.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 108 days
108 days — resolved before any substantive court ruling, well under median patent case duration
Dismissed without prejudice: what Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss its own action without a court order, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This dismissal carries no merits adjudication — no finding of infringement or invalidity. It is the cleanest procedural exit available and leaves the legal landscape essentially unchanged from the plaintiff’s perspective.
No merits ruling enteredWithout prejudice: the distinction that defines litigation risk
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means Experimental Propulsion Lab retains the right to refile these infringement claims against BAE Systems, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. This stands in contrast to a dismissal ‘with prejudice,’ which would permanently bar re-assertion. The public record specifies ‘without prejudice’ explicitly, so BAE Systems cannot treat this case as a final resolution of the patent dispute. Continued monitoring of US9086033B2 and any continuation patents is warranted.
Refiling remains possibleNo victory declaration — BAE Systems faces residual patent risk
While BAE Systems avoided a merits judgment, the dismissal without prejudice provides no legal shield against future assertion of US9086033B2. The accused products — including the Scorpio-XR and HVP device — remain potentially exposed. BAE Systems may wish to assess whether an IPR petition against US9086033B2 would provide more durable protection than relying on the plaintiff’s current inactivity.
Patent exposure persistsPrecision munitions IP: a contested and commercially strategic space
Hypervelocity projectile technology sits at the intersection of U.S. defense procurement and emerging precision-strike capability. Patent assertions in this space — even those resolved quickly — signal that IP holders are actively monitoring commercial and government-contract exploitation of foundational munitions patents. Defense contractors developing or selling HVP-class systems should treat this case as a signal to audit freedom-to-operate across the relevant patent landscape.
FTO audit recommendedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Experimental Propulsion Lab, LLC | Company | Defense-tech IP assertion entity — holder of US9086033B2 covering hypervelocity projectile technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | BAE Systems, Inc. | Company | BAE Systems, Inc. — major U.S. defense contractor, manufacturer of precision-guided munitions including the HVP and Scorpio-XRSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian E. Farnan | Attorney | Counsel for Experimental Propulsion Lab, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John J. Eichmann | Attorney | Counsel for Experimental Propulsion Lab, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Farnan | Attorney | Counsel for Experimental Propulsion Lab, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Navid C. Bayar | Attorney | Counsel for Experimental Propulsion Lab, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Farnan LLP | Law Firm | Representing Experimental Propulsion Lab, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Michael Lennon | Attorney | Counsel for BAE Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott A. Felder | Attorney | Counsel for BAE Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Wesley E. Weeks | Attorney | Counsel for BAE Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC | Law Firm | Representing BAE Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Colm F. Connolly | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with explicit ‘without prejudice’ language, meaning the court entered no judgment on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The mutual cost-bearing provision suggests the exit was negotiated or at minimum uncontested by BAE Systems. Critically, this phrasing forecloses any res judicata defense for BAE Systems — the same patent and accused products can be re-asserted in a future action. For practitioners, the absence of any claim construction, invalidity briefing, or motion practice means the legal merits of US9086033B2 against BAE Systems’ HVP-class products remain entirely untested.
US9086033B2 — Extended Range Hypervelocity Projectile Technology
US9086033B2, filed under application number 13/231603, covers technology relating to extended range hypervelocity projectiles — a category of precision-guided, gun-launched munitions designed for high-velocity terminal performance. The patent’s claims are relevant to systems capable of guided flight after gun launch, a technical challenge that intersects aerodynamics, propulsion, and guidance electronics. The accused products span BAE Systems’ Scorpio-XR, the Gun-Launched Guided Projectile, the HVP device, and the XM1155-SC, suggesting broad claim coverage across multiple product generations.
In the defense procurement context, hypervelocity projectile technology is strategically significant: the U.S. Navy and Army have invested substantially in HVP-class systems for gun-based precision strike. A patent covering core architectural elements of such projectiles — if valid and construed broadly — could generate substantial licensing leverage against prime contractors. The assertion against BAE Systems, one of the largest HVP suppliers to the U.S. government, underscores the commercial stakes. Competitors and subcontractors in the precision munitions supply chain should assess exposure to this patent family.
Should you run an FTO against US9086033B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or supplying extended range hypervelocity projectiles, gun-launched guided munitions, or related precision-strike subsystems — particularly those working on HVP-class programs for U.S. government contracts — should treat US9086033B2 as a priority FTO target. The dismissal without prejudice in this case does not extinguish the patent’s enforceability. Suppliers to BAE Systems or adjacent prime contractors in the XM1155 or Scorpio-XR supply chains face indirect exposure if the patent is re-asserted.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of US9086033B2, identify design-around opportunities, surface related family members or continuations, and benchmark the patent against prior art in hypervelocity and gun-launched guided projectile technology. For R&D teams working on next-generation precision munitions, an automated FTO workflow against this patent family provides early warning before procurement commitments are made.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9086033B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: precision munitions and defense-tech IP in Delaware
Explore related patent infringement actions in the precision-guided munitions and defense propulsion technology space litigated in the District of Delaware.
What this case signals for the defense-tech and precision munitions IP landscape
A fast voluntary dismissal in a high-stakes defense patent case rarely closes the story — it often opens the next chapter.
Voluntary dismissals in Delaware patent cases often precede refiling or licensing
Rule 41 exits at the pre-answer stage are frequently tactical. Plaintiffs may refile in a different venue, with a stronger claim set, or after licensing negotiations conclude. BAE Systems and comparable defense contractors should not treat this dismissal as closure — US9086033B2 remains an active, enforceable patent.
Mutual cost-bearing clause is commercially significant
The agreement that each party bears its own fees and costs is consistent with an early-stage negotiated resolution, though it could equally reflect a unilateral plaintiff withdrawal. Either way, it signals that neither party pushed for fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would require proving the case ‘exceptional’ — a high bar that was never tested here.
Experimental v BAE — key questions answered
Experimental Propulsion Lab, LLC filed a patent infringement suit against BAE Systems, Inc. in the District of Delaware on 22 November 2024, asserting US9086033B2 over hypervelocity projectile products including the Scorpio-XR and HVP device. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice on 10 March 2025 under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was entered.
A dismissal without prejudice means Experimental Propulsion Lab retains the right to refile its infringement claims based on US9086033B2 against BAE Systems in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. BAE Systems cannot claim res judicata protection. The patent remains enforceable and the accused products — including the Scorpio-XR and XM1155-SC — remain potentially exposed to a future action.
US9086033B2 (application no. 13/231603) is a U.S. patent covering extended range hypervelocity projectile technology — specifically precision-guided, gun-launched munitions systems. The patent was asserted against BAE Systems’ Scorpio-XR, Gun-Launched Guided Projectile, HVP device, Extended Range Hypervelocity Projectile, and XM1155-SC products, suggesting broad coverage across gun-launched precision strike architectures.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a plaintiff to dismiss its action without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment. It is the plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit a case cleanly. In this case, Experimental Propulsion Lab used it 108 days after filing, before substantive litigation proceeded, suggesting either an early strategic reassessment or a negotiated resolution not reflected in the public docket.
The dismissal without prejudice leaves US9086033B2 as an ongoing potential threat to BAE Systems. An inter partes review (IPR) petition at the USPTO could provide more durable protection by invalidating patent claims — a result not achievable through a voluntary dismissal. BAE Systems should assess IPR timing carefully, as the one-year bar from service of the original complaint may still apply. Monitoring continuation applications from the US9086033B2 family is also advisable.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.