Guntert & Zimmerman v. Godbersen-Smith — Federal Circuit Affirms Patent Invalidity
Guntert & Zimmerman’s patent on automatically adjusting swing legs for crawler-mounted construction equipment was found unpatentable, with the Federal Circuit affirming that ruling on appeal in a Rule 36 judgment after 601 days of litigation. The decision extinguishes US10196101B2 as an enforceable asset.
Federal Circuit kills crawler-equipment swing-leg patent in terse Rule 36 affirmance
Guntert & Zimmerman Construction Division, Inc. — a manufacturer active in the concrete paving and slipform equipment sector — held US10196101B2, a patent covering automatically adjusting swing legs used to mount, align, and reorient crawlers on heavy construction machinery. The company asserted that patent against Godbersen-Smith Construction Company, a competing construction equipment firm. The appeal was docketed at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 27 May 2022, with Kramer Levin representing the appellant and Finnegan Henderson representing the appellee.
The Federal Circuit closed the case on 18 January 2024, issuing a per curiam judgment under Federal Circuit Rule 36 — a summary affirmance without a written opinion. The panel of Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Cunningham affirmed the underlying finding of unpatentability, meaning the claims of US10196101B2 were confirmed as invalid. A Rule 36 affirmance signals the court found no reversible error warranting written analysis, effectively ratifying the lower tribunal’s invalidity determination in full.
The 601-day duration is consistent with the typical timeline for a Federal Circuit patent appeal proceeding through briefing, oral argument scheduling, and decision. The use of Rule 36 suggests the appellate panel found the invalidity arguments below to be well-reasoned and the appellant’s challenge unpersuasive on its face. The public record does not disclose the specific prior art or grounds — such as anticipation or obviousness — on which unpatentability was based at the first instance, leaving the precise technical vulnerability of the patent’s claims unclear from the appellate record alone.
Filing to settlement in 601 days
601 days from filing to Federal Circuit judgment
Federal Circuit affirms unpatentability of US10196101B2 under Rule 36
What a Rule 36 affirmance actually means
Federal Circuit Rule 36 allows the court to affirm a lower ruling without issuing a written opinion when the judges are unanimously satisfied that no error occurred. It is not a default or procedural shortcut — it is a substantive signal that the panel found the invalidity finding below to be correct and the appellant’s arguments insufficient to warrant published reasoning. For patent holders, it is among the least favourable appeal outcomes as it leaves no written basis to distinguish or narrow.
Summary affirmance — no written opinionUS10196101B2 is now confirmed unpatentable
An affirmance of unpatentability means the claims of US10196101B2 are invalidated and cannot be enforced. Guntert & Zimmerman loses the exclusive rights the patent conferred over automatically adjusting swing-leg technology for crawler mounting. Competitors, including Godbersen-Smith, are free to practise the disclosed technology without licence. Because the Federal Circuit is the final appellate authority for patent matters, the decision is effectively terminal barring any extraordinary review.
Patent extinguished — claims unenforceableMarket freedom opens for crawler-equipment manufacturers
With US10196101B2 cancelled, any manufacturer designing or supplying automatically adjusting swing-leg systems for crawler-mounted construction equipment no longer faces infringement exposure from this patent. Companies that may have designed around the claims or held back product development have effectively received clearance. The decision may alter licensing dynamics across the concrete paving and slipform equipment segment if Guntert & Zimmerman had previously used this patent assertively.
FTO landscape shifts for sectorFinnegan’s IPR/PTAB strategy delivered a clean win
Godbersen-Smith’s representation by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner — one of the leading USPTO post-grant practices — suggests the invalidity challenge likely originated as an inter partes review (IPR) or similar PTAB proceeding before reaching the Federal Circuit on appeal. The clean Rule 36 affirmance with a three-judge panel indicates no procedural or substantive weakness in Godbersen-Smith’s invalidity case that would have warranted a remand or partial reversal.
Post-grant challenge strategy validatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc. | Company | Concrete paving equipment manufacturer — holder of US10196101B2 (crawler swing-leg system)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Godbersen-Smith Construction Company | Company | Godbersen-Smith Construction Company — construction equipment competitor and invalidity challengerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James R. Hannah | Attorney | Counsel for Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason E. Stach | Attorney | Counsel for Godbersen-Smith Construction CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The Federal Circuit’s per curiam order under Rule 36 is deliberately terse — ‘AFFIRMED’ with no explanatory reasoning. This confirms the lower tribunal’s unpatentability finding without qualification or remand, meaning every challenged claim of US10196101B2 stands invalidated. For Guntert & Zimmerman, the absence of any written opinion forecloses the possibility of distinguishing or reframing the ruling in related proceedings. For Godbersen-Smith, it represents a complete and final victory on validity.
US10196101B2 — Automatically Adjusting Swing Legs for Crawler Mounting
US10196101B2 protects a system of automatically adjusting swing legs used to mount, align, and reorient crawlers on heavy construction equipment — technology central to the operational setup and repositioning of slipform pavers and similar crawler-propelled machines. The application number US16/013864 indicates a relatively recent filing in the construction equipment space, and the B2 grant designation confirms it issued after examination with allowed claims. The technology addresses a practical challenge in large-scale road and infrastructure construction: precise and repeatable crawler alignment without manual adjustment.
Crawler alignment technology is a competitive differentiator in the concrete paving equipment market, where setup time and precision directly affect project economics. A patent covering automatic adjustment mechanisms in this space could, if valid, create meaningful licensing leverage or exclusivity against rivals. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability removes that leverage entirely and suggests the claimed inventive step over prior art was insufficient. Competitors and new entrants in the slipform paver and crawler equipment segment can now treat this technical approach as freely available.
Should you run an FTO against US10196101B2 and related crawler patents?
Any company designing or commercialising automatically adjusting swing-leg systems, crawler-mounted pavers, or alignment mechanisms for heavy construction equipment should note that US10196101B2 is now cancelled. However, Guntert & Zimmerman may hold continuation patents, divisionals, or related family members with overlapping claims that remain active. R&D teams developing next-generation crawler alignment systems should confirm that no related granted patents cover their specific implementation before proceeding to market.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full patent family around US10196101B2, identify continuation and divisional filings that may carry forward related claims, and flag any surviving grants with live enforcement potential. Claim monitoring on Guntert & Zimmerman’s portfolio provides ongoing visibility if new applications publish in this technology class — ensuring your product development timelines are not disrupted by a related filing that escaped the invalidity ruling.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10196101B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patent invalidity appeals in construction equipment
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 construction equipment IP landscape
A confirmed invalidity at the Federal Circuit reshapes freedom-to-operate and licensing leverage across the crawler-mounted equipment sector.
Swing-leg and crawler-alignment patents face elevated invalidity risk
This outcome suggests that mechanical patents in the crawler-mounting and alignment space may be vulnerable to prior art challenges, particularly where the claimed adjustability concepts can be traced to earlier construction equipment designs. Patent holders in this segment should audit claim breadth and prosecution history before asserting similar patents in litigation or licensing negotiations.
Rule 36 outcomes close off appeal — assess your patent portfolio before filing
A Rule 36 affirmance provides no written reasoning for patentees to work with on remand or future prosecution. Companies relying on related patents in the same family as US10196101B2 should review whether those claims share the same vulnerability. Filing continuation claims with differentiated scope before an adverse ruling reaches the Federal Circuit is a standard defensive tactic worth evaluating early.
Guntert v Godbersen-Smith — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US10196101B2, a patent held by Guntert & Zimmerman covering automatically adjusting swing legs for crawler mounting and alignment. The per curiam Rule 36 judgment, issued 18 January 2024, confirmed the lower invalidity finding without a written opinion. Godbersen-Smith Construction Company successfully defended the challenge.
A Rule 36 affirmance means the Federal Circuit unanimously found no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s ruling and declined to issue a written opinion. In a patent invalidity context, it confirms that the challenged claims are unpatentable and unenforceable. The lack of written reasoning provides the patent owner with no basis to distinguish the ruling in related proceedings or future litigation.
No. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the unpatentability finding means the claims of US10196101B2 are invalid and cannot be enforced. Parties previously at risk of infringement exposure from this patent, including competitors in the crawler-mounted construction equipment sector, are no longer subject to its claims.
US10196101B2 covers automatically adjusting swing legs used for mounting, aligning, and reorienting crawlers on heavy construction equipment. This technology is relevant to slipform pavers and similar crawler-propelled machines used in road and infrastructure construction, where precise crawler alignment affects setup efficiency and operational precision.
Guntert & Zimmerman was represented by James R. Hannah of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP. Godbersen-Smith Construction Company was represented by Jason E. Stach of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP — a firm widely recognised for its post-grant and Federal Circuit patent appellate practice.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.