GoClips & Z Keepers v. AGM Tools: Three-Patent Clip System Dispute Settles
GoClips, LLC and Z Keepers, LLC brought a three-patent infringement action against AGM Tools of South Florida and nine affiliated entities, asserting rights over the GoClips® and Quick Clips fastening products. The case, filed in the Southern District of Florida, reached a joint settlement after 420 days — before any merits ruling was issued.
Multi-entity clip system dispute ends in confidential settlement
Filed on March 26, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, this infringement action was brought by GoClips, LLC and co-plaintiff Z Keepers, LLC against a network of ten AGM Tools entities — including AGM Tools of South Florida, Inc. and its affiliated regional operations in Texas, North Carolina, and Florida — as well as individual defendant Alejandro Garcia. The plaintiffs asserted three patents: utility patents US9828754B2 and US10378193B2 and design patent USD0855447S, all directed to the GoClips® and Quick Clips fastening clip products.
On May 19, 2025, the court acknowledged a Joint Notice of Settlement filed by the parties and directed them to file a formal stipulation of dismissal of all claims, signed by all parties, within 30 days. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Settled,’ and the clerk was instructed to administratively close the case. The settlement terms were not disclosed in the public docket, meaning the financial consideration, any licence granted, and any ongoing product restrictions remain unknown.
At 420 days, the timeline is consistent with a dispute that proceeded through early litigation phases — discovery disputes or claim construction preparation — before the parties concluded that negotiated resolution was commercially preferable to a merits adjudication. The breadth of defendants named across multiple AGM Tools regional entities suggests the plaintiffs perceived a coordinated distribution network as the infringement source. What drove the ultimate settlement, and whether AGM Tools obtained any licence or simply agreed to cease, is not ascertainable from the public record.
Filing to Case Settled in 420 days
420 days — slightly above the median for settled district patent cases in Florida
Case settled: what the joint dismissal order means for both sides
Court-directed Rule 41 dismissal following joint settlement notice
The court’s May 19, 2025 order did not itself dismiss the case — it directed the parties to file a Rule 41(a) stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties within 30 days. Until that stipulation is filed, the court retains jurisdiction. Administratively closing the case is a docket-management tool, not a final judgment. The settlement itself is a private contract enforceable separately from the court’s jurisdiction.
Rule 41(a) stipulation directedWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
The basis of termination is ‘Case Settled,’ but the court’s order does not specify whether the forthcoming stipulation will be with or without prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice bars the plaintiffs from re-filing the same claims; without prejudice preserves that right. Given that a settlement agreement was reached, dismissal with prejudice is common practice — but this page does not assert that, as the stipulation had not yet been publicly filed at the time of writing.
Prejudice terms not yet publicGoClips and Z Keepers secure resolution without a validity ruling
By settling, GoClips and Z Keepers avoided the risk of an adverse claim construction or invalidity finding on any of the three asserted patents. The patents remain intact on the register. Whether the settlement included a licence fee, royalty arrangement, or a cease-and-desist commitment from the AGM Tools entities is undisclosed — but the multi-defendant scope suggests the plaintiffs sought broad cessation of the alleged infringing activity across the AGM network.
Patents survive, terms undisclosedAGM Tools avoids merits adjudication across all ten entities
All ten AGM Tools defendants — spanning South Florida, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, McAllen, San Antonio, Raleigh, and the holding company — are covered by the settlement, consistent with the plaintiffs’ strategy of pursuing the full distribution chain. Individual defendant Alejandro Garcia is also included. By settling, AGM Tools entities avoided a potential injunction and damages award, but the confidential terms may impose product or sales restrictions that affect their ongoing operations.
Full network resolved jointlyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | GoClips, LLC | Company | Fastening product IP holders — asserting GoClips® clip system patents US9828754B2, USD0855447S, US10378193B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Z Keepers, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | AGM Tools of South Florida, Inc. | Company | AGM Tools multi-state retail/distribution network and affiliated entities, led by AGM Tools of South Florida, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AGM Austin Tools, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AGM Tools Dallas LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AGM Tools Holdings LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AGM Tools Houston LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AGM Tools of Charlotte LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AGM Tools of McAllen, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AGM Tools SanAntonio Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AGM Tools, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AGM Tools of Raleigh, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | ALEJANDRO GARCIA | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles Germain Geitner | Attorney | Counsel for GoClips, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Pierson Ferdinand, LLP | Law Firm | Representing GoClips, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Joshua Paul | Attorney | Counsel for AGM Tools of South Florida, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Woodrow Heath Pollack | Attorney | Counsel for AGM Tools of South Florida, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Haug Partners LLP | Law Firm | Representing AGM Tools of South Florida, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shutts & Bowen LLP | Law Firm | Representing AGM Tools of South Florida, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order acknowledges a joint notice of settlement and directs a Rule 41(a) stipulation — it is a procedural step, not a substantive ruling on infringement or patent validity. No claim construction, damages finding, or injunctive relief was issued. The order’s 30-day filing window and the administrative closure instruction are standard case management tools used when the parties have reached agreement in principle but have not yet filed formal dismissal papers. The confidential settlement means neither party’s legal position on the merits was adjudicated.
US9828754B2, USD0855447S & US10378193B2 — GoClips® fastening clip system
The three asserted patents cover the GoClips® and Quick Clips fastening system from multiple angles. US9828754B2 and US10378193B2 are utility patents protecting functional aspects of the clip mechanism — the latter likely representing a continuation filing given its later application date (US15/824647 vs. US14/566112), suggesting the patent holder pursued broadened or refined claim coverage post-grant. USD0855447S is a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of the clip product, applied for under US29/625249. Together, the portfolio layers functional and aesthetic protection — a common enforcement posture for consumer hardware products where competitors may design around one layer but not both.
For competing manufacturers of clip, bracket, or panel-fastening products, the combination of utility and design patent coverage creates a meaningful barrier. Design patents in particular can be highly effective against products that replicate the visual appearance of a patented product, with damages calculated on total article profit under 35 U.S.C. § 289. The AGM Tools entities’ decision to settle across their entire multi-state network — rather than contest validity — suggests the patents were perceived as credible enforcement tools. Competitors and new entrants in the clip and fastener hardware space should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO against US9828754B2, USD0855447S, and US10378193B2?
Any manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of clip-based fastening systems, panel attachment hardware, or quick-release clip products operating in the U.S. market should evaluate freedom to operate against this three-patent portfolio. The combination of utility and design coverage means that designing around the functional claims alone may not resolve FTO exposure if the ornamental appearance of your product is similar to the design patent. The fact that GoClips pursued a ten-entity regional distribution network — and succeeded in settling — demonstrates a willingness to enforce broadly.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the claim language of US9828754B2 and US10378193B2, flag design patent aesthetic overlap with USD0855447S, and surface any continuation applications still in prosecution that could expand claim scope. Eureka also monitors post-grant proceedings — including IPR petitions — so your legal team receives early warning if the patent landscape around GoClips® clip technology changes. Run your FTO analysis before your next product launch, not after a cease-and-desist letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9828754B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: clip and fastening hardware disputes in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable infringement actions involving clip, bracket, and panel-fastening patents filed in U.S. district courts, including the Southern District of Florida.
What this case signals for the fastening products IP landscape
A three-patent assertion against a ten-entity distribution network is a deliberate enforcement strategy — and this settlement outcome carries lessons for the sector.
Asserting design and utility patents together strengthens leverage
GoClips and Z Keepers asserted both a design patent (USD0855447S) and two utility patents (US9828754B2 and US10378193B2) simultaneously. This stacked approach raises the cost and complexity of defence, as the defendants must mount separate invalidity and non-infringement arguments for each patent type — a strategy that typically accelerates settlement discussions.
Multi-entity distribution networks attract coordinated enforcement
Naming ten affiliated regional defendants — rather than a single parent — signals a plaintiff strategy of foreclosing the argument that only one entity infringed. R&D teams and product distributors operating across regional subsidiaries should ensure IP clearance is conducted at the network level, not just at the brand or holding-company level.
GoClips v AGM — key questions answered
GoClips LLC and Z Keepers LLC asserted three patents: utility patent US9828754B2, design patent USD0855447S, and utility patent US10378193B2. All three relate to the GoClips® and Quick Clips fastening clip products. The case was filed in the Southern District of Florida on March 26, 2024.
The case resolved by settlement. On May 19, 2025, the court acknowledged the parties’ Joint Notice of Settlement and directed them to file a Rule 41(a) stipulation of dismissal within 30 days. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Settled.’ The financial terms, any licence granted, and product restrictions are not disclosed in the public docket.
The plaintiffs named ten AGM Tools entities — spanning Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and a holding company — plus individual defendant Alejandro Garcia. This multi-defendant approach is consistent with a strategy of targeting an entire regional distribution network to prevent any single entity from claiming it was the sole infringer, thereby maximising settlement leverage and the scope of any injunctive relief sought.
US9828754B2 and US10378193B2 are utility patents protecting the functional aspects of the GoClips® clip mechanism. US10378193B2 appears to be a continuation of the earlier filing, suggesting refined or broadened claims. USD0855447S is a design patent protecting only the ornamental appearance of the clip. Design patent infringement is assessed by the ‘ordinary observer’ test and can support damages based on total article profit under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
The public docket does not reflect a completed Markman hearing before settlement. The case ran for 420 days, and the Joint Notice of Settlement was filed in May 2025. Settlement before claim construction is common and may reflect either confidence in patent strength or a desire by either party to avoid the uncertainty of judicial claim interpretation. No merits ruling was issued.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.