Frazer Industries vs. Centurion Pro: Hemp Harvesting Patent Case Dismissed
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Frazer Industries, LLC v. Centurion Pro Solutions, Inc. |
| Case Number | 2:23-cv-00853 (D. Utah) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Utah |
| Duration | Nov 2023 – Aug 2024 280 days |
| Outcome | Dismissed without Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Centurion Pro XL, HP1, HP3, HPM, HPTT, and Megabucker Centurion Buckers |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
The plaintiff and patent holder, asserting rights over technology used in industrial hemp and cannabis harvesting equipment.
🛡️ Defendant
Well-recognized manufacturer of commercial-grade hemp bucking and harvesting machines.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on U.S. Patent No. US11766066B2, a utility patent covering technology in the hemp harvesting and processing equipment space. The patent protects ornamental appearance rather than functional technology.
- • US11766066B2 — Hemp harvesting and processing equipment technology
Designing hemp processing equipment?
Check if your product design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case was administratively closed on August 26, 2024, and subsequently dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution. No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was granted. This outcome provides temporary commercial relief to Centurion Pro Solutions and emphasizes the importance of procedural compliance in patent litigation.
Key Legal Issues
The court’s ruling is procedurally instructive. Frazer Industries filed a Third Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, seeking to alter a July 1, 2024, Answer deadline. Chief Judge Allen denied this motion without prejudice, finding that Frazer Industries had not attempted to satisfy the legal standard required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 6(b)(1)(B). This rule governs requests to extend deadlines after they have expired and requires a showing of “excusable neglect,” a standard established by the Supreme Court in *Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership*, 507 U.S. 380 (1993).
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in the hemp processing equipment sector. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in hemp tech patents
- Understand claim construction patterns
🔍 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
Hemp bucking & harvesting tech
~50 Related Patents
In hemp processing equipment
Design-Around Options
Available for most claims
✅ Key Takeaways
Rule 6(b)(1)(B)’s excusable neglect standard requires affirmative, documented justification — courts will not infer it.
Search related case law →Repeated extension requests without substantive justification invite heightened judicial scrutiny and risk case-ending consequences.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. US11766066B2 (Application No. US15/261894), covering technology applicable to hemp harvesting and bucking equipment.
The court dismissed the case after Frazer Industries failed to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B)’s excusable neglect standard in its third motion to extend a filing deadline, resulting in administrative closure and subsequent dismissal for lack of prosecution.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling. Frazer Industries retains the right to reassert patent infringement claims, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and strategic considerations.
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
- United States District Court for the District of Utah – Case 2:23-cv-00853 (PACER)
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office – US11766066B2
- Cornell Legal Information Institute – FRCP Rule 6(b)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
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.