Foam Solutions v. Vanguard Fire & Supply: Patent Infringement Settled With Prejudice
Foam Solutions, LLC filed suit against Vanguard Fire and Supply Co. in the Eastern District of Michigan, asserting infringement of US7513315B2, covering a system and method for testing foam-water fire suppression systems. The parties reached a settlement effective January 17, 2024, with all claims dismissed with prejudice — closing the dispute in 342 days.
Settlement closes foam-water fire suppression IP dispute in under a year
On March 7, 2023, Foam Solutions, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Vanguard Fire and Supply Co. in the Eastern District of Michigan (Case No. 2:23-cv-10538). The suit centred on US7513315B2, a patent covering a system and method for testing foam-water fire fighting and fire suppression systems — a technically specialised area within the fire protection equipment sector. Plaintiff was represented by Reising Ethington PC and defendant by Varnum LLP.
The case resolved through a negotiated settlement effective January 17, 2024, with both parties stipulating to dismissal of all claims with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. The court formally closed the case on February 12, 2024. Because the dismissal carries a ‘with prejudice’ designation, Foam Solutions is barred from refiling the same infringement claims against Vanguard on this patent. Each party agreed to bear its own legal costs and attorneys’ fees, suggesting a mutually negotiated exit rather than a concession by either side.
At 342 days from filing to closure, the case resolved faster than many comparable district court patent matters that proceed to claim construction or trial. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement and early settlement date — occurring before any publicly recorded trial activity — suggests the parties likely reached commercial terms without extended litigation. The specific terms of the underlying settlement agreement remain confidential and are not reflected in the public court record.
Filing to dismissal in 342 days
342 days — resolved before trial, consistent with early settlement timelines in district court patent cases
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice — what the settlement order means
Dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41
The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A stipulated dismissal differs from a unilateral voluntary dismissal — both parties agreed to the order, typically as part of executing a settlement. The ‘with prejudice’ designation means the court’s closure is final on the merits for these specific claims between these specific parties.
Stipulated — both parties agreedFoam Solutions cannot refile these claims against Vanguard
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles. Foam Solutions, LLC is barred from bringing the same patent infringement claims — under US7513315B2 — against Vanguard Fire and Supply in a future action. This provides Vanguard with permanent protection from re-litigation of these specific allegations, and typically signals that Vanguard received a licence, covenant not to sue, or other contractual protection in the settlement agreement.
Res judicata — no re-litigationEach party bears its own costs — no fee-shifting
The stipulated order explicitly provides that each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. In patent litigation, fee awards under 35 U.S.C. § 285 are available in ‘exceptional’ cases. The absence of any fee-shifting here is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution rather than a determination of misconduct or an exceptional case finding. Neither party is publicly recorded as having ‘won’ on the merits.
No § 285 fee awardUnderlying settlement terms remain private
The court record reflects only the stipulated dismissal order and the effective date of the Settlement Agreement (January 17, 2024). The commercial terms — including any licence grant, royalty, product restrictions, or monetary payment — are not part of the public record. This is standard for patent settlements where parties negotiate confidentiality as part of the resolution. Competitors and practitioners cannot infer the financial or licensing outcome from the docket alone.
Terms confidentialFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Foam Solutions, LLC | Company | Fire suppression technology company — holder of US7513315B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Vanguard Fire and Supply, Co. | Company | Fire protection equipment supplier operating in the foam-water suppression marketSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard W. Hoffmann | Attorney | Counsel for Foam Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William L. Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for Vanguard Fire and Supply, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Michigan Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The stipulated order records that both parties ‘having entered into a Settlement Agreement Effective as of January 17, 2024’ agreed to dismiss all claims with prejudice. This phrasing confirms the dismissal is settlement-driven, not a unilateral withdrawal. The ‘with prejudice’ designation provides Vanguard with res judicata protection against re-litigation of these claims. The absence of any cost award is consistent with a balanced commercial negotiation rather than a finding of fault by either party.
US7513315B2 — Foam-Water Fire Suppression System Testing Method
US7513315B2 protects a system and method for testing foam-water fire fighting and fire suppression systems — a technically specific area involving the verification and validation of combined foam-and-water delivery systems used in industrial and commercial fire protection. The application number US11/353381 places its filing in the mid-2000s, suggesting the patent covers established methodology that predates widespread digital monitoring integration. The patent sits within the broader fire protection and suppression technology domain, which faces increasing regulatory and safety scrutiny.
The patent’s enforcement in this case demonstrates that niche fire suppression testing methodology can sustain infringement litigation in federal district court. For equipment manufacturers, system integrators, and distributors in the foam-water fire protection market, the existence of an actively enforced patent on testing systems — rather than just the suppression hardware itself — expands the IP risk perimeter. Any company whose product offering includes diagnostic, validation, or commissioning tools for foam-water systems should assess whether their methodology overlaps with the claims of US7513315B2.
Should your team run an FTO against US7513315B2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, distributes, or services foam-water fire suppression systems — including testing and commissioning tools — US7513315B2 is a patent you need on your FTO radar. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is willing to pursue infringement through federal litigation. The fact that no claim construction order was issued means the scope of the claims has not been judicially narrowed, leaving maximum risk for potential infringers.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and legal teams to map their product or method against the claims of US7513315B2 quickly, identifying freedom-to-operate gaps before commercialisation. Claim monitoring tools within Eureka can also alert your team if continuation or divisional applications extend the patent family’s coverage — a critical watch point in enforcement-active patent families.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7513315B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases in fire suppression and safety system technology
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the fire suppression IP landscape
A quick, prejudicial settlement in a niche fire suppression patent dispute carries signals worth tracking for IP teams in the safety equipment sector.
US7513315B2 has demonstrated commercial enforcement value
Foam Solutions pursued litigation to the point of a settlement with prejudice, indicating the patent was viable enough to compel a negotiated resolution. Companies manufacturing or distributing foam-water fire suppression testing equipment should treat US7513315B2 as an actively enforced asset and conduct FTO analysis before commercialising related systems.
Mutual cost-bearing is typical but signals balanced leverage
When neither party secures a cost award in a patent settlement, it typically suggests neither side held a clearly dominant position at the time of resolution. For competitors watching this space, the early settlement — before claim construction — means no court has yet interpreted the scope of US7513315B2’s claims, leaving that question open.
Foam v Vanguard — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on February 12, 2024, following a Settlement Agreement effective January 17, 2024. Both parties stipulated to the dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, with each bearing its own costs. Foam Solutions cannot refile the same claims against Vanguard.
Foam Solutions asserted US7513315B2, a patent covering a system and method for testing foam-water fire fighting and fire suppression systems. The application number is US11/353381. The patent relates to testing and validation methodology for foam-water suppression equipment.
Dismissed with prejudice means the court’s closure is final on the merits for these specific claims. Foam Solutions is legally barred from bringing the same infringement claims under US7513315B2 against Vanguard in a future lawsuit. It is a stronger closure than dismissal without prejudice, which would allow refiling.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on March 7, 2023, and closed February 12, 2024. The Eastern District of Michigan is an active venue for patent infringement matters involving industrial and manufacturing technology.
Foam Solutions was represented by attorney Richard W. Hoffmann of Reising Ethington PC. Vanguard Fire and Supply was represented by attorney William L. Thompson of Varnum LLP. Both firms are Michigan-based practices with intellectual property litigation experience.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.