Guntert & Zimmerman v. Godbersen-Smith: Federal Circuit Affirms All Four Paver Patents Unpatentable
Guntert & Zimmerman’s four patents covering automatically adjusting swing legs for slipform paver crawlers were affirmed unpatentable by the Federal Circuit after a 601-day appeal. The decision handed Godbersen-Smith Construction a complete defence victory, extinguishing all asserted patent claims.
Federal Circuit wipes out four slipform paver patents in full affirmance
Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc., a manufacturer active in the concrete slipform paving equipment sector, brought this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 22-1831), seeking to reverse an invalidity ruling covering four US patents: US10029749, US9908571, US10196101, and US9708020. All four patents relate to automatically adjusting swing legs used for mounting, aligning, and reorienting crawler tracks on slipform pavers — a technically specialised product category central to large-scale road and infrastructure construction.
The Federal Circuit issued an affirmance on 18 January 2024, approximately 601 days after the appeal was filed on 27 May 2022. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Unpatentable,’ meaning the court upheld the lower tribunal’s finding that the asserted patent claims lacked the requisite patentability — most likely on grounds of anticipation or obviousness, consistent with inter partes review or post-grant proceedings that commonly feed Federal Circuit invalidity appeals. The affirmance is dispositive: all four patents are cancelled and Guntert & Zimmerman cannot reassert these specific claims against Godbersen-Smith or any other party.
A 601-day timeline from filing to decision is broadly consistent with Federal Circuit norms for patent invalidity appeals, suggesting the case did not face unusual procedural complications. The public record does not disclose whether settlement discussions occurred in parallel or whether licensing negotiations had preceded litigation. What remains unknown is the commercial impact on Godbersen-Smith’s product line and whether Guntert & Zimmerman holds continuation patents not captured in this proceeding that could support future enforcement in the slipform paver market.
Filing to settlement in 601 days
601-day appeal — within typical Federal Circuit patent invalidity timelines
Federal Circuit affirmed unpatentability across all four asserted patents
Affirmance on unpatentability — all claims extinguished
An affirmance of unpatentability at the Federal Circuit means the appellate court agreed with the prior tribunal that the challenged patent claims fail to meet patentability requirements. This outcome is legally final for these four patents: the claims cannot be enforced by Guntert & Zimmerman against any party going forward. It is among the most complete outcomes a patent challenger can obtain — stronger than a non-infringement finding, which leaves the patent intact.
Complete invalidity — all four patentsInvalidity/cancellation action origin consistent with IPR proceedings
The verdict cause is recorded as ‘Invalidity/Cancellation Action,’ which at the Federal Circuit level typically signals the appeal originated from an inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In IPR proceedings, patents are commonly cancelled on anticipation or obviousness grounds. The public record does not specify the exact statutory basis, but the cancellation framing strongly suggests PTAB origin rather than a district court invalidity counterclaim.
Likely PTAB-origin appealFour related patents lost — potential continuation exposure remains
All four patents share technical subject matter around automatically adjusting swing legs for slipform paver crawlers, and their application numbers (US15/873757, US15/623012, US16/013864, US15/148811) suggest a coordinated filing strategy across multiple continuation or related applications. Losing all four in a single proceeding represents a significant erosion of Guntert & Zimmerman’s IP position in this product category. Competitors should audit whether continuation patents from the same priority family remain active.
Multi-patent family eliminatedGodbersen-Smith gains freedom to operate in swing-leg crawler systems
With all four patents affirmed unpatentable, Godbersen-Smith Construction gains a clear freedom-to-operate position with respect to automatically adjusting swing-leg technology for slipform paver crawlers. Other manufacturers in the slipform paving sector benefit equally — the cancelled claims can no longer be asserted against any party. This outcome may reshape competitive dynamics in a niche but commercially significant segment of road construction equipment.
Broad FTO benefit for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc. | Company | Slipform paving equipment manufacturer — holder of US10029749, US9908571, US10196101 & US9708020Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Godbersen-Smith Construction Company | Company | Godbersen-Smith Construction Company — construction equipment manufacturer and successful appelleeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James R. Hannah | Attorney | Counsel for Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Price | Attorney | Counsel for Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jenna Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lisa Kobialka | Attorney | Counsel for Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul J. Andre | Attorney | Counsel for Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Mroz | Attorney | Counsel for Godbersen-Smith Construction CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason E. Stach | Attorney | Counsel for Godbersen-Smith Construction CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Luke McCammon | Attorney | Counsel for Godbersen-Smith Construction CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert King High III | Attorney | Counsel for Godbersen-Smith Construction CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sonja Sahlsten | 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 single-word verdict ‘AFFIRMED’ on a basis of ‘Unpatentable’ is one of the most conclusive outcomes in US patent appellate proceedings. It confirms that the Federal Circuit found no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s cancellation of all four asserted patents. For Guntert & Zimmerman, the ruling eliminates all enforcement rights in this patent family with no viable path to reassertion on these claims. For Godbersen-Smith and the broader slipform paving sector, the decision creates a permanent, judicially confirmed freedom-to-operate position against these specific swing-leg crawler patents.
US10029749, US9908571, US10196101 & US9708020 — Slipform Paver Swing-Leg Systems
The four patents — US10029749, US9908571, US10196101, and US9708020 — cover automatically adjusting swing legs for mounting, aligning, and reorienting crawler tracks on slipform paving machines. Slipform pavers are heavy construction machines that extrude concrete continuously, used in highway, airport, and large infrastructure projects. The swing-leg system governs how crawler tracks are repositioned to accommodate different machine widths and site configurations — a mechanically critical function affecting paving precision and operational flexibility. The application numbers suggest a staggered filing strategy across 2016–2018, consistent with building a defensive portfolio around a core mechanical innovation.
Strategically, these patents represented Guntert & Zimmerman’s attempt to fence off a specific mechanical approach to crawler adjustment in slipform pavers — a niche but commercially important product category with few major global players. The invalidation of all four in a single proceeding significantly weakens the company’s IP moat in this segment. For competitors and new entrants, the cancellation suggests the claimed swing-leg mechanisms were found to have sufficient prior art coverage to defeat patentability, potentially opening the design space more broadly than the patent filings implied.
Should your team run an FTO against US10029749 and related paver patents?
Any manufacturer, OEM, or engineering team developing slipform paving equipment with automatically adjusting crawler systems should treat this case as a prompt to audit the broader Guntert & Zimmerman patent family. While these four patents are now cancelled, related filings — continuations, divisionals, or international equivalents — may cover similar technical ground. Product teams working on swing-leg mechanisms, crawler alignment systems, or automatic width-adjustment features for concrete pavers face residual risk if the full family has not been mapped.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the complete patent family originating from the application numbers in this case, identify any surviving related filings, and flag claim language that overlaps with your product’s technical specification. Claim monitoring alerts will notify your IP team if any continuation from this family publishes or grants — giving you advance warning before a new enforcement risk crystallises in the slipform paving equipment space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10029749 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 slipform paving equipment IP landscape
Four patents cancelled in a single appeal is a rare and decisive outcome. Here is what it means for IP strategy in construction equipment.
Cancelled patents cannot be reasserted — the FTO window is now open
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability is legally final for US10029749, US9908571, US10196101, and US9708020. Manufacturers of slipform paver crawler systems with automatically adjusting swing legs no longer face infringement exposure from these specific claims. Any party previously deterred by these patents should reassess their product roadmap in light of this outcome.
Monitor the priority family for surviving continuation applications
The four invalidated patents appear to stem from a coordinated filing strategy. Guntert & Zimmerman may hold continuation or divisional applications not captured in this proceeding. IP teams at competing manufacturers should conduct a family-level search to identify any related pending or granted patents that could be used to reassert similar claims in the future.
Guntert v Godbersen-Smith — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of all four patents asserted by Guntert & Zimmerman — US10029749, US9908571, US10196101, and US9708020 — in a decision issued on 18 January 2024. The affirmance is legally final for these claims; Guntert & Zimmerman cannot reassert them against any party.
The four patents cover automatically adjusting swing legs for mounting, aligning, and reorienting crawler tracks on slipform paving machines. This technology controls how the crawler undercarriage of a concrete slipform paver is repositioned for different job configurations — a mechanically critical function in large-scale road and infrastructure construction.
The public record describes the verdict cause as an ‘Invalidity/Cancellation Action,’ which is consistent with an appeal from a USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review or post-grant review proceeding. The case record does not explicitly confirm PTAB origin, but the cancellation framing strongly suggests it.
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability means the four cancelled patents can no longer be enforced against any party. Competitors and new entrants developing slipform paver crawler systems with automatically adjusting swing legs gain a legally confirmed freedom-to-operate position with respect to these specific claims. However, related continuation or international patents from the same family may still pose risk and should be independently assessed.
The appeal ran for 601 days, from filing on 27 May 2022 to the Federal Circuit’s decision on 18 January 2024. This duration is broadly consistent with typical Federal Circuit timelines for patent invalidity appeals and does not suggest unusual procedural delay.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.