After 531 days of litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, the patent infringement dispute between Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota Inc. (collectively "Graco") and Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. ("HFT") was quietly resolved via a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice on July 1, 2024. The action, filed on January 17, 2023, centered on two patents — US11446689B2 and US11446690B2 — covering portable airless sprayer technology. The parties invoked Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), agreeing that each side would bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, leaving the substantive merits of infringement and validity entirely unresolved by the court.

This case is strategically significant for IP professionals operating in the fluid-handling and power-tool equipment sectors. A dismissal without prejudice means Graco retains the right to re-file its infringement claims, preserving optionality and keeping competitive pressure on HFT. For patent attorneys and in-house IP teams, the outcome underscores how pre-trial stipulations can serve as tactical instruments — particularly where parties may prefer private resolution over the uncertainty of judicial claim construction. R&D teams at competing manufacturers should note that the asserted patents remain enforceable and fully active.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

US11446689B2 and US11446690B2, both filed under application numbers US17/741796 and US17/741868 respectively, cover innovations in portable airless sprayer systems — devices that atomize and spray paint or coatings without the use of compressed air. These patents likely protect specific mechanical configurations, pump assemblies, or control mechanisms that enable compact, user-operable spraying at professional performance levels. Their real-world application spans residential painting, commercial finishing, and industrial coating operations where portability and consistent spray pressure are critical product differentiators.

• • US11446689B2
• • US11446690B2

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Counsel: Fish & Richardson LLP (lead: Conrad A. Gosen)
Defendant Counsel: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP; Spencer Fane LLP (lead: David Michael Grable)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case was filed on January 17, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota — a venue with established familiarity with complex commercial and intellectual property disputes, and one that Graco, headquartered in Minneapolis, likely selected for home-court procedural advantage. As a first-instance district court matter, this proceeding represented the initial — and ultimately final — judicial forum for the infringement claims, meaning no appellate record was generated and no Federal Circuit guidance on the asserted patents was produced.

The litigation ran for 531 days before closing on July 1, 2024 — a duration consistent with active pre-trial litigation that likely encompassed initial pleadings, discovery negotiations, and potentially early claim construction briefing, though no trial was held. The case was resolved through a stipulated dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a mechanism requiring agreement of all parties and signaling a negotiated conclusion rather than a dispositive ruling. Notably, each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting the resolution was commercially motivated and mutual, with the underlying dispute — including all claims, counterclaims, and defenses — left formally unresolved on the merits.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The court did not issue a merits determination in this case. On July 1, 2024, Graco Inc., Graco Minnesota Inc., and Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), disposing of all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, and defenses asserted by both parties. No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief was granted, and each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The action was initiated as a patent infringement claim, and its termination by stipulated dismissal without prejudice reflects several legally significant dynamics worth examining.

• The dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the consent of all parties once an answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed, indicating Harbor Freight Tools actively participated in negotiating the exit from litigation.
• Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Graco retains the full legal right to reassert infringement claims based on US11446689B2 and US11446690B2 against Harbor Freight Tools or any other party in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
• The mutual agreement that each party bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs eliminates the risk of fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — a provision that allows courts to award fees in ‘exceptional’ patent cases — suggesting neither party sought to characterize the dispute as frivolous or egregious.
• The absence of any adjudicated claim construction means no judicial interpretation of the key claim terms in US11446689B2 or US11446690B2 has been placed on record, preserving Graco’s flexibility to argue broader or narrower claim scope in future proceedings.

Legal Significance

1. Because the case was dismissed without prejudice and no claim construction order was issued, the asserted patents US11446689B2 and US11446690B2 carry no adverse judicial history, leaving their full scope of enforceability intact for future assertion.
2. The use of a mutual stipulated dismissal with each party bearing its own costs is a recognized signal of private settlement or commercial resolution, and industry observers should consider whether a licensing agreement or product design change may have accompanied the dismissal — facts not disclosed in the public record.
3. For competitors in the portable airless sprayer market, the unresolved nature of this litigation creates ongoing FTO uncertainty, as Graco may reassert these patents without needing to demonstrate any change in circumstances.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys:

• When advising clients on patent enforcement strategy, note that a without-prejudice dismissal preserves all future rights — counsel should confirm that any accompanying private agreements (e.g., licenses or design-change commitments) are clearly memorialized to avoid future disputes about the scope of resolution.
• The absence of a claim construction record from this case means that if Graco refiles, both sides will approach Markman proceedings without the constraint of prior judicial rulings — attorneys representing either party should prepare claim construction positions now rather than waiting for re-filing.
• When structuring a stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the ‘each party bears its own fees’ formulation is strategically valuable because it forecloses post-dismissal fee motions under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and should be considered as a standard term in settlement-adjacent dismissals.
• Fish & Richardson LLP (plaintiff) and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP with Spencer Fane LLP (defendant) both deployed six-attorney litigation teams, reflecting the complexity and commercial stakes of portable equipment patent disputes — budget planning for similar matters should account for comparable team depth.

For IP Professionals:

• In-house IP teams at fluid-handling or finishing-equipment companies should treat this dismissal as a yellow flag rather than a green light: US11446689B2 and US11446690B2 remain active and enforceable, and Graco’s willingness to litigate signals an aggressive posture toward competitive portable sprayer products.
• Monitor any continuation or related applications stemming from US17/741796 and US17/741868 in Graco’s prosecution pipeline — a dismissal without prejudice is sometimes accompanied by intensified prosecution activity to broaden claim coverage ahead of a re-filing.

For R&D Teams:

• R&D teams developing portable airless sprayer products should conduct a formal FTO analysis against US11446689B2 and US11446690B2 before commercializing new designs, as these patents remain enforceable with no adverse judicial findings on their validity or scope.
• Consider documenting design choices that differentiate your sprayer’s pump assembly, control architecture, or portability features from the claimed elements of Graco’s patents — this documentation strengthens both design-around arguments and any future invalidity or non-infringement positions.