Fern Avenue Solutions v. Protected Solutions: Armored Furniture Patent Case Settles in Georgia
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Fern Avenue Solutions, LLC v. Protected Solutions, LLC |
| Case Number | 1:23-cv-02085 (N.D. Ga.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |
| Duration | May 2023 – April 2024 11 months |
| Outcome | Settlement Reached |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Moveable furniture with armored panels |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Pursued infringement claims as the apparent patent holder or exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,170 in the armored furniture market.
🛡️ Defendant
Accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,310,170 through its competing moveable armored furniture products.
Patents at Issue
This case involved U.S. Patent No. 9,310,170, which covers a moveable furniture piece with an armored panel. This innovation is commercially significant for integrating protective armor into furniture while maintaining mobility and functional usability. The patent was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
- • US 9,310,170 — Moveable furniture piece incorporating an armored panel.
Designing a similar product?
Check if your armored furniture design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case was **dismissed without prejudice** by order of Chief Judge Steve C. Jones, following notification by defense counsel that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The court’s order administratively terminated the action, with a 60-day window to reopen the case if the settlement was not finalized. No damages amount was publicly disclosed, and no injunctive relief was formally granted or denied.
Key Legal Issues
Because the matter settled before trial, no judicial findings on infringement, validity, or claim construction were issued. This means no claim construction ruling, validity determination, or infringement finding (literal or under the doctrine of equivalents) was resolved on the merits. The settlement-in-principle outcome is legally significant for what the parties chose to avoid: a contested Markman hearing, expert discovery, and potential summary judgment motions that could have exposed either party’s position on claim scope and product mapping.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in armored furniture design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all relevant patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in protective furniture patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for armored designs
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Moveable furniture with integrated armored panels
Related Patents
In armored furniture design space
Design-Around Options
Available with careful analysis
✅ Key Takeaways
Dismissal without prejudice with a 60-day reopening window is a practical settlement preservation order—useful template for similar cases.
Search related case law →Single-patent assertions in specialized niches can resolve efficiently when claim scope is commercially clear.
Explore precedents →No Markman or validity rulings issued — the ‘170 patent’s claim scope remains judicially untested.
Analyze claim scope →Frequently Asked Questions
U.S. Patent No. 9,310,170 (Application No. 13/827,791), covering a moveable furniture piece with an armored panel.
Defense counsel informed the court that the parties reached a settlement in principle. The court administratively terminated the action, with the dismissal converting to with prejudice if not reopened within 60 days.
Because the case settled without any court ruling on infringement or validity, the ‘170 patent’s enforceability remains untested — preserving plaintiff’s assertion leverage in future disputes.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- USPTO Patent Center – U.S. Patent No. 9,310,170
- PACER – Case 1:23-cv-02085
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.