HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods: Bacon Processing Patent Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
HIP, Inc. filed suit against Hormel Foods and four related entities in Delaware alleging infringement of US9980498B2, a patent covering bacon processing technology. After 2,474 days of litigation — nearly seven years — the parties agreed to dismiss without prejudice, each bearing its own legal costs.
A near-seven-year patent battle over bacon processing ends quietly
HIP, Inc. initiated this action on 29 May 2018 in the District of Delaware, asserting infringement of US9980498B2 against Hormel Foods Corporation and four affiliated entities: Hormel Foods Corporate Services, LLC; Osceola Food, LLC; Rochelle Foods, LLC; and Dold Foods, LLC. The patent-in-suit relates to bacon processing technology, and the accused product was identified as BACON1. Represented by Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, HIP pursued this multi-defendant action across a litigation period that ultimately stretched to 2,474 days.
The case closed on 7 March 2025 through a stipulated dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Notably, HIP first filed an opposed Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), which it subsequently moved to withdraw after Hormel consented. The parties then jointly filed a Rule 41(a)(1) stipulation, with each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No merits ruling, claim construction order, or damages determination was publicly entered.
The near-seven-year duration is notable even by complex patent litigation standards and suggests the parties engaged in extensive pre-trial proceedings before ultimately opting for resolution without adjudication. The fee-splitting arrangement — each party bearing its own costs — is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a clear litigation winner. What drove the ultimate decision to dismiss, including any concurrent licensing discussions or commercial arrangements, is not apparent from the public docket.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 2474 days
Nearly 7 years — well above the median district court patent case duration
Dismissed without prejudice: what the Rule 41(a)(1) stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal: no merits adjudication, door left open
A Rule 41(a)(1) stipulated dismissal without prejudice terminates the action without any ruling on the merits. Critically, ‘without prejudice’ means HIP retains the legal right to refile claims based on the same patent — US9980498B2 — subject to any applicable statute of limitations or intervening developments such as IPR proceedings. No findings of infringement, validity, or damages were made.
No merits ruling enteredWithout prejudice confirmed — but the public record is silent on underlying terms
The stipulation explicitly states dismissal is without prejudice, meaning HIP’s patent claims are not extinguished. However, the public record does not disclose whether any licensing agreement, covenant not to sue, or commercial settlement accompanied the dismissal. Practitioners should not infer that no agreement exists — merely that no terms were publicly filed. A dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar refiling; that is not the case here.
Refiling rights preservedHormel avoids a merits loss but faces residual patent exposure
Hormel Foods and its affiliates escape this action without an adverse judgment, and the fee-neutral arrangement means no cost award against them. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, US9980498B2 remains a live enforcement risk. Hormel’s bacon processing operations could face a renewed assertion unless a private licensing or covenant arrangement was secured as part of the resolution. Continued FTO monitoring of this patent is advisable.
No cost award; patent risk remainsUnresolved patent leaves sector-wide uncertainty for bacon processors
The absence of a validity or infringement ruling means US9980498B2 has neither been invalidated nor found to be infringed. For other bacon and processed meat manufacturers, this outcome provides no safe harbour. The patent remains enforceable, and HIP retains the ability to pursue further actions. Companies operating in adjacent bacon processing segments should assess their exposure to this patent’s claims independently.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | HIP, Inc. | Company | Food technology IP licensor — holder of US9980498B2, bacon processing patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hormel Foods, Corp. | Company | Hormel Foods Corp. and affiliates — major U.S. processed meat manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Hormel Foods Corporate Services, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Osceola Food, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Rochelle Foods, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Dold Foods, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dennis Brown | Attorney | Counsel for HIP, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jerry R. Selinger | Attorney | Counsel for HIP, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Karen Jacobs | Attorney | Counsel for HIP, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Flynn | Attorney | Counsel for HIP, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sean M. Brennecke | Attorney | Counsel for HIP, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Susan E. Powley | Attorney | Counsel for HIP, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing HIP, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing HIP, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Barbara Marchevsky | Attorney | Counsel for Hormel Foods, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bindu Ann George Palapura | Attorney | Counsel for Hormel Foods, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Ellis Moore | Attorney | Counsel for Hormel Foods, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kurt J. Niederluecke | Attorney | Counsel for Hormel Foods, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Laura L. Myers | Attorney | Counsel for Hormel Foods, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephanie E. O’Byrne | Attorney | Counsel for Hormel Foods, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy M. O’Shea | Attorney | Counsel for Hormel Foods, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper LLP (US) | Law Firm | Representing Hormel Foods, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hormel Foods, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal language confirms this was a consensual exit: HIP withdrew its initially opposed Rule 41(a)(2) motion after Hormel consented, and the parties proceeded under the less burdensome Rule 41(a)(1) mechanism. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ designation and mutual cost-bearing clause are the operative terms. No admission of liability, no validity finding, and no damages assessment can be inferred from this language — the record is procedurally terminal but substantively silent.
US9980498B2 — Bacon processing technology and food manufacturing method
US9980498B2, filed under application number US13/207065, covers bacon processing technology in the food manufacturing domain. The patent was asserted against Hormel’s BACON1 product line and associated manufacturing operations across multiple production facilities. As a product-and-process patent in the meat processing space, it likely covers specific thermal treatment, curing, or mechanical handling steps that differentiate the claimed method from prior art bacon manufacturing techniques.
In the competitive processed meats sector, proprietary manufacturing method patents carry significant commercial weight: they can restrict how competitors and contract manufacturers structure their production lines without necessarily limiting the end product category. US9980498B2 remains in force with no invalidation on record, making it a live enforcement risk for any bacon processor whose production methods overlap with the claimed process steps. The multi-facility, multi-entity defendant structure in this case suggests HIP viewed the patent as broadly applicable across Hormel’s production network.
Should your R&D team run an FTO against US9980498B2?
Any company operating bacon processing or cooked meat manufacturing lines — whether as a brand owner, contract manufacturer, or co-packer — should treat US9980498B2 as an active enforcement risk. The Delaware dismissal produced no invalidity ruling and no claim construction guidance. If your processing methods involve techniques that could overlap with the patent’s method claims, the absence of a judicial outcome in HIP v. Hormel provides no clearance.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map US9980498B2’s claim scope against your specific processing steps, identify prior art that could support an invalidity challenge, and monitor HIP’s enforcement activity across jurisdictions. Given the patent’s unresolved status after seven years of litigation, a structured FTO analysis is more valuable — not less — than it would be had the case proceeded to judgment.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9980498B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar food processing patent cases in Delaware District Court
Explore patent infringement actions involving food manufacturing and processing methods litigated in the District of Delaware, with comparable multi-entity defendant structures.
What this case signals for the food processing IP landscape
A near-seven-year Delaware patent case ending without a merits ruling sends nuanced signals to IP teams across the processed food sector.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve enforcement leverage for patent holders
HIP’s retention of refiling rights means US9980498B2 remains a strategic asset. Patent holders in food manufacturing should note that a dismissal without prejudice after extensive litigation does not signal patent weakness — it may simply reflect a commercial resolution not visible on the public docket.
Multi-entity defendants create complex settlement dynamics in food IP cases
Naming five Hormel-affiliated entities — including contract processors like Dold Foods and Osceola Food — is consistent with a strategy to capture the full supply chain. IP teams at large food manufacturers should ensure subsidiary and contract manufacturing agreements address patent indemnification, as co-defendant structures can complicate unified settlement negotiations.
HIP v Hormel — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on 7 March 2025 via a Rule 41(a)(1) stipulated dismissal. No merits ruling was entered. Each party bore its own attorneys’ fees and costs. HIP retains the right to refile claims based on US9980498B2, as the dismissal was expressly without prejudice.
HIP, Inc. asserted US9980498B2, a patent covering bacon processing technology, filed under application number US13/207065. The accused product was designated BACON1. The patent relates to food manufacturing methods in the processed meat sector and remains in force with no invalidation on record.
A without-prejudice dismissal means the patent holder — HIP, Inc. — retains the right to refile infringement claims. No finding of non-infringement or invalidity was made. For Hormel and other processed meat manufacturers, US9980498B2 remains an enforceable patent. The outcome provides no judicial clearance or safe harbour for competing production methods.
HIP initially filed an opposed motion under Rule 41(a)(2), which requires court approval and allows the court to impose conditions. After Hormel consented, HIP withdrew that motion and the parties proceeded under Rule 41(a)(1), which requires only a signed stipulation and takes effect without court order. The switch to Rule 41(a)(1) simplified the exit and avoided any court-imposed conditions on the dismissal.
The case ran for 2,474 days — approximately six years and nine months — from filing in May 2018 to closure in March 2025. This duration is consistent with complex patent litigation involving claim construction, expert discovery, and potential dispositive motions. The fee-neutral, without-prejudice exit after such an extended period suggests neither party reached a decisive litigation advantage, though any private settlement terms remain undisclosed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.