Book a demo
Guntert & Zimmerman v. Godbersen-Smith: Slipform Paver Patent Cancelled | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID22-1833
FiledMay 2022
ClosedJan 2024
Patent Litigation

Guntert & Zimmerman v. Godbersen-Smith — Slipform Paver Patent Cancelled on Appeal

Guntert & Zimmerman’s patent covering adjustable bolster swing legs for slipform paving machines was found unpatentable, a ruling the Federal Circuit affirmed in January 2024. The appeal ran 601 days, ending with complete cancellation of US9708020B2 — eliminating Godbersen-Smith’s key infringement exposure.

Resolution time
601days
601 days from filing to Federal Circuit decision
Patents asserted
1
US9708020B2 — adjustable bolster swing legs for slipform paving machines
Outcome
Unpatentable
Affirmed unpatentable — US9708020B2 claims cannot be enforced by Guntert & Zimmerman
Cost ruling
N/A
No costs ruling reported in public record for this appeal
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Federal Circuit kills slipform paver patent in full cancellation ruling

Guntert & Zimmerman Construction Division, Inc. held US9708020B2, a patent directed at adjustable bolster swing legs used to reorient crawlers on slipform paving machines — specialist heavy construction equipment used to lay continuous concrete surfaces such as highway barriers and pavement. The company brought claims against Godbersen-Smith Construction Company, a competing player in the paving equipment sector. The dispute ultimately reached the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under Case No. 22-1833, filed 27 May 2022.

The Federal Circuit issued its decision on 18 January 2024, affirming the lower tribunal’s finding of unpatentability and formally cancelling the asserted claims of US9708020B2. An affirmance of unpatentability means the reviewing court agreed that the patent claims should never have been granted — or no longer meet the legal standards for patent protection — and upheld that determination in full. For Godbersen-Smith, the ruling eliminates the patent as an enforcement tool, removing all infringement exposure tied to these claims.

A 601-day appeal duration is broadly consistent with Federal Circuit patent cases, which typically run between 18 and 24 months from filing to decision. The case proceeded to a merits affirmance rather than settling or being dismissed, suggesting both parties saw sufficient value in a final ruling. The public record does not disclose whether any concurrent district court proceedings were stayed pending this appeal, nor whether damages or injunctive relief had been sought at the trial level.

Case at a glance
Case no.22-1833
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Judge/
FiledMay 27, 2022
ClosedJanuary 18, 2024
Duration601 days
OutcomeUnpatentable
Verdict causePatentability
BasisUnpatentable
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to settlement in 601 days

601 days from filing to Federal Circuit decision

Case timeline: Complaint filed May 13 2025, MAR–APR — 601 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc. v Godbersen-Smith Construction Company from filing to voluntary dismissal. Source: PACER, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. MAY 27 2022 Complaint filed MAR–APR 2022 Pre-trial proceedings JAN 18 2024 Resolved consent judgment 601 DAYS TOTAL
Court ruling

Federal Circuit affirms unpatentability — US9708020B2 cancelled in full

Legal mechanism

What ‘AFFIRMED — Unpatentable’ means in practice

An affirmance of unpatentability at the Federal Circuit confirms that the challenged patent claims failed to satisfy one or more patentability requirements — most commonly obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or anticipation under § 102. The Federal Circuit has upheld the lower tribunal’s cancellation in its entirety, meaning US9708020B2 claims are extinguished and carry no further legal force.

Claims cancelled — no further appeal path
Plaintiff impact

Guntert & Zimmerman loses its enforcement position entirely

With the patent affirmed unpatentable, Guntert & Zimmerman cannot assert US9708020B2 against Godbersen-Smith or any third party. Any pending infringement suits tied to this patent would be moot. The company’s competitive protection over the bolster swing leg mechanism is extinguished, and competitors may now freely practice the claimed technology without licensing obligations.

Patent unenforceable — no licensing leverage
Defendant outcome

Godbersen-Smith secures clean freedom to operate

The affirmance gives Godbersen-Smith a definitive ruling rather than a settlement, which provides stronger legal certainty. Because cancellation is an in rem outcome — it affects the patent itself, not just the parties — Godbersen-Smith benefits from a result that also clears the landscape for the wider paving equipment industry. The company’s legal team at Finnegan Henderson successfully defended the unpatentability finding on appeal.

Freedom to operate — confirmed by Federal Circuit
Sector implications

Slipform paving IP landscape opens following cancellation

The cancellation of US9708020B2 removes a key structural patent from the slipform paving equipment space. Manufacturers developing or commercialising adjustable crawler-reorientation mechanisms — including bolster swing leg configurations — no longer face this specific IP barrier. The ruling may embolden design-around strategies that had previously been constrained by the existence of this patent.

IP barrier removed — sector-wide effect
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 22-1833 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffGuntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.CompanyHeavy construction equipment manufacturer — holder of US9708020B2 for slipform paving technologySearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantGodbersen-Smith Construction CompanyCompanyGodbersen-Smith Construction Company — paving equipment manufacturer and appelleeSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJames R. HannahAttorneyCounsel for Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJason E. StachAttorneyCounsel for Godbersen-Smith Construction CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge /Chief JudgeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Stipulation of dismissal — official text

“AFFIRMED”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 22-1833, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Filed January 18, 2024

The Federal Circuit’s single-word disposition — AFFIRMED — on a basis of unpatentability represents the strongest possible adverse outcome for a patent holder on appeal. It confirms the lower tribunal’s cancellation without modification, remand, or partial reinstatement. For Guntert & Zimmerman, there is no residual claim left standing; for Godbersen-Smith, the ruling provides res judicata certainty that this patent cannot resurface in future enforcement actions.

PACER case 22-1833 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US9708020B2 — Adjustable Bolster Swing Legs for Slipform Paving Machines

Publication No.US9708020B2
Application No.US15/148811
Patent details
AssigneeGuntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
ProductUS9708020B2 — adjustable bolster swing legs for slipform paving machines
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionMay 27, 2022

US9708020B2 (application number US15/148811) relates to adjustable bolster swing leg mechanisms designed to reorient the crawler tracks of slipform paving machines. Slipform pavers are large, self-propelled machines that extrude concrete into continuous shapes — barriers, kerbs, pavements — as they move. The ability to reorient crawler tracks is a critical operational feature enabling the machine to navigate job sites, change direction, and configure itself for different paving angles. This patent addresses the mechanical interface between the machine frame and its crawler drive units.

In a market dominated by a small number of major equipment manufacturers, structural patents over core machine configurations carry significant commercial weight. A valid patent on crawler reorientation geometry could prevent competitors from matching machine mobility features — directly affecting product competitiveness and customer specifications. The Federal Circuit’s cancellation suggests the claimed mechanism lacked sufficient inventive distinction over the prior art, potentially indicating that such bolster configurations were already known or obvious in the heavy construction equipment field.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your team run an FTO analysis against US9708020B2?

Although US9708020B2 has been cancelled by the Federal Circuit, product teams developing slipform paving machines or crawler-based construction equipment should still conduct a freedom-to-operate review. Guntert & Zimmerman may hold continuation patents, divisionals, or related applications derived from the same priority chain that were not subject to this cancellation proceeding. Any of those surviving patents could assert similar claims against bolster or swing leg configurations in your product.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full patent family surrounding US9708020B2, identify surviving related applications, and flag active claims that may read on crawler reorientation or adjustable bolster designs. Claim-level monitoring can alert your team if Guntert & Zimmerman files new applications in this technology space — giving product and legal teams early warning before enforcement risk materialises.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9708020B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar Federal Circuit patent cancellation cases in heavy equipment

PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc. patent enforcement history, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case history, Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Slipform paver IP disputesFederal Circuit affirm ratesConstruction equipment IPR outcomesCrawler mechanism patent cases
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this ruling signals for the slipform paving equipment IP landscape

A Federal Circuit cancellation is one of the strongest IP outcomes available — its effects extend well beyond the two parties in this case.

Cancelled patents create open design space — act before competitors do

With US9708020B2 cancelled, the bolster swing leg configuration is no longer protected. Companies operating in the slipform paving sector should review their current and pipeline product designs to assess whether previously restricted features can now be incorporated. Monitoring related continuations or divisionals from Guntert & Zimmerman’s portfolio remains prudent.

Federal Circuit affirmances signal weak prosecution — audit related filings

When the Federal Circuit affirms unpatentability rather than remanding, it typically suggests the claims had fundamental drafting or prior art problems. IP teams should examine whether Guntert & Zimmerman holds continuation patents or related applications in the paving equipment space that may carry similar vulnerabilities — and whether inter partes review is worth pursuing proactively.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Includes sector IP trends, Judge Treadwell’s case history, and FTO risk assessment for the truck equipment space
Finnegan Henderson win rateGuntert & Zimmerman portfolio riskPost-grant strategy signals
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Guntert v Godbersen-Smith — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Map your freedom-to-operate risk in paving equipment IP

Use PatSnap Eureka to run an FTO analysis against the full US9708020B2 patent family and monitor Guntert & Zimmerman’s active filings. Track enforcement signals before they become litigation risk.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.