Hanover Prest-Paving v. Greenrise Technologies: Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice
Hanover Prest-Paving Co. filed suit against Greenrise Technologies LLC in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, asserting two patents covering architectural paving pedestal systems against Greenrise’s GRO Fixed Head Pedestals. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after just 140 days — before the defendant had filed any answer.
Early with-prejudice exit in a paving pedestal patent dispute
On 18 August 2023, Hanover Prest-Paving Co., trading as Hanover Architectural Products, filed an infringement action against Greenrise Technologies LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, before Chief Judge Sylvia H. Rambo. The complaint centred on two patents — US7918059B2 and US8438805B2 — which cover architectural paving pedestal systems, and named Greenrise’s GRO Fixed Head Pedestals as the allegedly infringing product.
The case closed on 5 January 2024, 140 days after filing, when Hanover filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Crucially, the notice was filed before Greenrise had served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, meaning Hanover was entitled to dismiss unilaterally at that procedural stage. The with-prejudice designation is the critical term: it permanently bars Hanover from re-asserting the same claims against Greenrise on these patents.
The 140-day duration suggests that the parties likely reached a commercial resolution — such as a licence, design-around agreement, or settlement — without needing to litigate substantive patent issues. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, licence agreement, or the precise reason Hanover chose to foreclose future claims. Whether Greenrise modified its product or entered a licensing arrangement remains unknown from the docket.
Filing to resolution in 140 days
Resolved in 140 days — well under the median for district court patent infringement cases
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral dismissal before answer
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without court approval if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Hanover exercised this right before Greenrise responded to the complaint. This is a low-friction exit mechanism that requires no judicial sign-off and leaves no substantive ruling on the record.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWith prejudice: permanent bar on re-filing these claims
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), permanently extinguishing Hanover’s right to assert the same patent claims against Greenrise. This is a significant concession by the plaintiff — it goes beyond a tactical pause. The voluntary nature suggests both parties likely found an out-of-court resolution, but the public record does not confirm this.
Claims permanently extinguishedNo defendant answer on file — minimal litigation footprint
The docket reflects no defendant law firm, no defendant agents, and no answer or dispositive motion from Greenrise. This unusually light record suggests the case was resolved through direct negotiation shortly after filing, without the parties engaging the court on any substantive patent issues. No claim construction, invalidity arguments, or infringement analysis are publicly available from this litigation.
No substantive record created140-day window consistent with licence or design-around talks
Patent infringement actions that settle or resolve pre-answer within roughly four to five months often reflect early commercial negotiations rather than a pure litigation strategy. The with-prejudice dismissal, combined with the absence of any defendant filing, is consistent with Greenrise either obtaining a licence, agreeing to modify the GRO Fixed Head Pedestal product, or reaching some other commercial accommodation — though none of this is confirmed in the public record.
Likely off-docket resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hanover Prest-Paving, Co. | Company | Architectural paving products manufacturer — holder of US7918059B2 and US8438805B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Greenrise Technologies, LLC | Company | Greenrise Technologies LLC — manufacturer of GRO Fixed Head Pedestal paving systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin A. Tomevi | Attorney | Counsel for Hanover Prest-Paving, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lindsey M. Cook | Attorney | Counsel for Hanover Prest-Paving, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sylvia H. Rambo | Chief Judge | Pennsylvania Middle District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, filed before Greenrise served any responsive pleading, creates no substantive legal record on infringement or validity. For Greenrise, the with-prejudice designation closes this specific litigation threat permanently. For Hanover, it preserves the patents as enforceable assets against third parties while foreclosing this particular action. The absence of any defendant filing is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution whose terms are not publicly disclosed.
US7918059B2 & US8438805B2 — architectural paving pedestal systems
US7918059B2 (application no. US12/417927) and US8438805B2 (application no. US13/032910) both relate to systems and methods for supporting elevated architectural paving — typically pavers, tiles, or decking raised above a substrate on adjustable or fixed support pedestals. The two patents share a related application lineage, suggesting they protect overlapping but distinct aspects of the same core technology. This family is central to the raised access flooring and outdoor architectural paving category.
Raised paving pedestal systems are used extensively in commercial rooftop terraces, plaza decks, and outdoor hospitality environments. As demand for elevated architectural paving has grown, the IP landscape around pedestal design — particularly fixed-head configurations — has become more contested. Hanover’s assertion of both patents against a single product line suggests the patents are designed to provide layered protection, making design-arounds more complex for competitors entering this space.
Should your pedestal paving product be cleared against US7918059B2 and US8438805B2?
Any manufacturer, importer, or distributor of fixed or adjustable paving pedestals intended for the North American market should assess freedom-to-operate against both patents before commercialisation. Hanover has demonstrated it will file in federal court to protect these assets. The GRO Fixed Head Pedestal was the named accused product — product teams working on comparable elevated paving support systems face a directly analogous risk profile.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US7918059B2 and US8438805B2 against your product’s technical features, flagging overlap risk at the claim element level. Ongoing claim monitoring alerts you if Hanover — or any assignee — files continuations or divisional applications that could extend coverage into adjacent product configurations, keeping your FTO analysis current beyond the initial clearance.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7918059B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent disputes in the architectural paving and pedestal system space
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 architectural paving IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice exit by a patent holder is rarely the whole story. Here is what practitioners and product teams should read into it.
Pedestal paving IP is actively enforced — monitor these two patents
Hanover’s willingness to file in federal court over GRO Fixed Head Pedestals signals that US7918059B2 and US8438805B2 are commercially significant assets the company actively monitors and enforces. Any manufacturer or distributor of adjustable paving pedestal systems should treat these patents as live enforcement risks, not dormant filings.
Pre-answer with-prejudice dismissals often signal private resolution
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice before the defendant has even filed an answer, the most commercially rational explanation is that the parties reached a private resolution — licence, design change, or exit from the market. IP teams tracking competitors should note that the absence of a court ruling does not mean the dispute concluded without consequence for the defendant.
Hanover v Greenrise — key questions answered
Hanover Prest-Paving Co. filed a patent infringement action against Greenrise Technologies LLC in the Middle District of Pennsylvania on 18 August 2023, asserting US7918059B2 and US8438805B2 against Greenrise’s GRO Fixed Head Pedestals. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on 5 January 2024, 140 days after filing, before Greenrise had filed any answer.
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits. The plaintiff retains the patent and can enforce it against other parties, but cannot re-sue Greenrise on these specific claims.
Two patents were asserted: US7918059B2 (application no. US12/417927) and US8438805B2 (application no. US13/032910). Both relate to architectural paving pedestal systems and share a related application lineage. The accused product was Greenrise’s GRO Fixed Head Pedestal system.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the swift dismissal. However, dismissal with prejudice before the defendant filed any answer is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution — such as a licensing agreement, a product design change by Greenrise, or a commercial settlement. No settlement terms are publicly available from the docket.
No. The with-prejudice designation permanently extinguishes Hanover’s right to assert the same patent claims against Greenrise in future litigation. Hanover retains US7918059B2 and US8438805B2 and can enforce them against other third parties, but this specific dismissal closes the door on re-suing Greenrise on the same claims.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.