FMC Technologies v. Albaugh: Three Insecticide Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice in 280 Days
FMC Technologies filed suit against Albaugh, LLC in Iowa Southern District Court asserting three patents covering its Rynaxypyr® and Coragen® diamide insecticide franchise. The parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) after 280 days, with each side bearing its own costs — a resolution that forecloses FMC from re-filing these specific claims.
A High-Value Agrochemical IP Dispute Resolved Before Trial
FMC Technologies, Inc. filed this patent infringement action against Albaugh, LLC on February 12, 2024, in the Iowa Southern District Court. The complaint asserted three U.S. patents — US7339057B2, US7276601B2, and US7528260B2 — covering chemistry underlying FMC’s commercially significant diamide insecticide products, Rynaxypyr® and Coragen®. Albaugh’s accused product was its Exceliprole 4SC, an insecticide consistent with being a generic or competing diamide formulation.
The case closed on November 18, 2024, when the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The dismissal was bilateral and no-fault: each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Dismissal with prejudice means FMC is permanently barred from reasserting these three patents against Albaugh on the same claims, effectively granting Albaugh a degree of freedom from these specific IP assertions.
The 280-day resolution — well inside the average district court patent lifecycle — suggests the parties reached a negotiated understanding relatively quickly after filing, possibly including a licensing arrangement or commercial settlement whose terms are not reflected in the public record. The absence of fee-shifting is consistent with a mutually agreed exit rather than a litigation win for either side. Whether any licensing terms, product modifications, or supply arrangements accompanied the dismissal remains unknown from public filings.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 280 days
280 days — faster than the typical 2–3 year district court patent trial lifecycle, suggesting early negotiated resolution
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): Voluntary Stipulated Dismissal
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires both parties’ signatures, making it a consensual exit. ‘With prejudice’ means the claims are permanently extinguished — the plaintiff cannot re-file the same infringement assertions. This is a stronger finality mechanism than a without-prejudice dismissal and typically reflects a concluded negotiation rather than a tactical pause.
Permanent bar on re-filingFMC Permanently Waives Future Claims on These Patents vs. Albaugh
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, FMC Technologies surrenders the right to assert US7339057B2, US7276601B2, and US7528260B2 against Albaugh on the conduct at issue. This is a significant concession unless offset by licensing revenue or commercial terms agreed out of court. The no-cost clause suggests no judicial finding favored FMC, and any value extracted from this litigation is likely contained in undisclosed private terms.
Claims extinguished vs. AlbaughAlbaugh Secures Freedom from These Three Patent Assertions
Albaugh, LLC emerges from this action with a judicially-recorded bar preventing FMC from re-filing these specific claims. Whether Albaugh obtained a formal license, agreed to modify Exceliprole 4SC, or simply negotiated a walk-away is not public. The no-cost provision means Albaugh did not recover its defense spend, consistent with a settlement where both sides accepted compromise terms rather than a defendant litigation win.
Protected from re-assertionDiamide Insecticide IP Landscape Remains Contested
FMC’s Rynaxypyr®/Coragen® franchise is one of the most commercially valuable in crop protection. The swift resolution of this case without trial suggests the parties found a workable boundary, but the three asserted patents remain enforceable against other parties. Competitors developing or distributing diamide insecticides — including other generic entrants — should treat this case as a signal that FMC actively monitors and enforces this portfolio.
Patents still active vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | FMC Technologies, Inc. | Company | Agrochemical IP licensor — holder of US7339057B2, US7276601B2, and US7528260B2 covering diamide insecticidesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Albaugh, LLC | Company | Albaugh, LLC — agrochemical manufacturer and distributor; maker of accused Exceliprole 4SC insecticideSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marc Wade Vander Tuig | Attorney | Counsel for FMC Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen R. Eckley | Attorney | Counsel for FMC Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sydney Kathleen Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for FMC Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zachary Wiersma | Attorney | Counsel for FMC Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP | Law Firm | Representing FMC Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP (MO) | Law Firm | Representing FMC Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Eckley Law, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing FMC Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Emily DiBenedetto | Attorney | Counsel for Albaugh, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey D. Harty | Attorney | Counsel for Albaugh, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Karen Keller | Attorney | Counsel for Albaugh, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lynn C. Herndon | Attorney | Counsel for Albaugh, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | NYEMASTER GOODE PC | Law Firm | Representing Albaugh, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | SHAW KELLER LLP | Law Firm | Representing Albaugh, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Iowa Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal language is precise and consequential: ‘all claims in this action are dismissed with prejudice’ forecloses any future re-filing by FMC against Albaugh on the same grounds. The mutual cost-bearing provision — each party absorbing its own fees — is characteristic of a negotiated exit rather than a litigation outcome on the merits. No judicial finding of infringement, invalidity, or non-infringement was made, meaning the three asserted patents carry no estoppel effect from this proceeding against third parties.
US7339057B2, US7276601B2 & US7528260B2 — Diamide Insecticide Chemistry
The three asserted patents — US7339057B2, US7276601B2, and US7528260B2 — cover chemistry in the anthranilic diamide insecticide class, the active ingredient family underlying FMC’s Rynaxypyr® and Coragen® products. These compounds operate by modulating insect ryanodine receptors, disrupting muscle function. The patents derive from application numbers in the US10 and US11 series, consistent with filings made in the mid-2000s when diamide chemistry was being commercialised as a next-generation insecticide class.
Rynaxypyr® (chlorantraniliprole) is among the highest-revenue active ingredients in the global crop protection market, making its underlying patents high-value enforcement assets. The assertion of all three patents simultaneously against a single accused product — Albaugh’s Exceliprole 4SC — is consistent with a layered patent strategy designed to maximise coverage and settlement leverage. For generic manufacturers or product developers working in the diamide or ryanodine receptor modulator space, these patents represent a significant freedom-to-operate consideration.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US7339057B2, US7276601B2 & US7528260B2?
Any agrochemical company developing, formulating, or distributing insecticide products in the anthranilic diamide class — or ryanodine receptor-targeting chemistry more broadly — should treat these three FMC patents as active risks. The Albaugh case demonstrates FMC’s willingness to assert all three patents in federal court against a generic competitor. The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the FMC-Albaugh dispute; every other market participant remains exposed. R&D teams launching new diamide formulations or seeking regulatory approval for generic equivalents should prioritise claim mapping before commercialisation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US7339057B2, US7276601B2, and US7528260B2 against your product specifications in minutes. Eureka surfaces prosecution history, claim amendments, and cited prior art to help you assess design-around opportunities and invalidity arguments — giving your IP and R&D teams the intelligence needed to make informed go/no-go decisions on diamide insecticide product development.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7339057B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Diamide Insecticide Patent Infringement Cases in U.S. District Courts
Cases involving FMC’s Rynaxypyr® chemistry patents and diamide insecticide infringement actions filed in U.S. federal district courts, including Iowa and Delaware.
What this case signals for the agrochemical insecticide IP landscape
FMC’s rapid assertion and swift resolution around its diamide patents reveals both enforcement posture and portfolio strength in crop protection IP.
FMC’s diamide portfolio remains a live enforcement threat for generic entrants
The filing of three simultaneous patents against Albaugh’s Exceliprole 4SC signals that FMC actively monitors generic competition in the diamide insecticide space. Any company marketing a product that could read on Rynaxypyr® chemistry should conduct a thorough FTO analysis before commercialisation. The with-prejudice dismissal only binds FMC as against Albaugh — third-party exposure is unchanged.
Rapid dismissals in ag-chem IP often mask licensing arrangements
A 280-day resolution with no public settlement terms is a common fingerprint of a confidential licensing deal. IP teams tracking the diamide competitive landscape should note that Albaugh’s Exceliprole 4SC may now be operating under a license, which could affect pricing, market positioning, and the competitive dynamics of the broader generic insecticide market.
FMC v Albaugh — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice in Case No. 4:24-cv-00055 means FMC Technologies permanently waived the right to re-assert US7339057B2, US7276601B2, and US7528260B2 against Albaugh on the same claims. No judicial finding on infringement or validity was made. The three patents remain fully enforceable against all other third parties.
FMC Technologies asserted three U.S. patents: US7339057B2, US7276601B2, and US7528260B2. These patents cover diamide insecticide chemistry underlying the Rynaxypyr® active ingredient used in FMC’s Coragen® product line. Albaugh’s Exceliprole 4SC was the accused product in the infringement action.
The 280-day resolution is faster than a typical district court patent trial, which commonly takes two to four years. The swift closure under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — a bilateral stipulated dismissal — suggests the parties reached a negotiated resolution early, potentially including a confidential licensing or commercial arrangement. No trial or summary judgment ruling occurred.
No. A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) does not involve any judicial ruling on patent validity or infringement. The patents US7339057B2, US7276601B2, and US7528260B2 remain presumptively valid and enforceable against other parties. No invalidity finding, claim construction ruling, or estoppel arises from this dismissal.
Exceliprole 4SC is an insecticide product manufactured and distributed by Albaugh, LLC. FMC alleged it infringed three patents protecting diamide insecticide chemistry underlying Rynaxypyr® and Coragen®. The public record does not detail the specific claim mapping, but the product’s active ingredient chemistry is consistent with the anthranilic diamide class covered by FMC’s asserted patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.