Illinois Tool Works v. Chicago Laminating: Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed in 58 Days
Illinois Tool Works, Inc. brought an infringement action against Chicago Laminating, Inc. asserting three patents covering light-dispersive glazing units, foil laminate printing, and laminated sheet processes. The appeal reached the Federal Circuit but was dismissed by agreement under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) after just 58 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
Three laminating patents, one brief Federal Circuit appeal
Illinois Tool Works, Inc. filed an infringement action against Chicago Laminating, Inc. asserting three United States patents: US6002521A (light dispersive insulated glazing unit), US7544266B2 (method of producing foil laminate with double-sided printing), and US6491782B1 (process of making laminated sheet and product made by the process). The appeal, docketed as Case No. 23-2275, was filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 14 August 2023.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Appeal Dismissed.' The docket order states that the parties having so agreed, the proceeding was dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. The Federal Circuit issued no ruling on the merits of the infringement claims or the validity of any of the three asserted patents.
The appeal closed on 11 October 2023 — just 58 days after filing, which is consistent with an early agreed disposition rather than full appellate briefing. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement to dismiss are not disclosed in the available record. What, if any, commercial resolution accompanied the procedural dismissal remains unknown from the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 58 days
58-day Federal Circuit appeal — unusually brief for a multi-patent infringement action
US6002521A, US7544266B2 & US6491782B1 — laminating and glazing patents
Any R&D team or product group developing light-dispersive glazing products, foil laminate materials with dual-sided printing, or laminated sheet manufacturing processes should consider these three ITW patents as priority FTO targets. The Federal Circuit appeal — though dismissed without a merits ruling — confirms these patents remain actively enforced and have not been adjudicated invalid. Manufacturers, OEM suppliers, and specialty glass or laminate producers face the highest exposure.
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit order records a mutual agreement to dismiss under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with no merits ruling on infringement, validity, or claim construction for any of the three asserted patents. The cost-neutral outcome — each side bearing its own costs — is consistent with an arms-length agreed resolution, though the substance of any such resolution is not disclosed in the available record.
Appeal dismissed: what the agreed termination means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) dismissal — procedural, not on the merits
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure permits an appellate court to dismiss an appeal on the parties' agreed motion. The Federal Circuit issued no opinion and made no merits determination regarding infringement or patent validity. The order confirms the parties agreed to the dismissal; each side bears its own costs. The specific terms underlying that agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
No merits adjudicationITW's three patents remain unadjudicated at the Federal Circuit
Because the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits, no appellate ruling was issued on the validity or enforceability of US6002521A, US7544266B2, or US6491782B1. Illinois Tool Works retains the ability to assert these patents in future proceedings, subject to whatever private terms may have been reached with Chicago Laminating — terms not disclosed in the public record.
Patents not invalidatedChicago Laminating avoids a Federal Circuit merits ruling
Chicago Laminating, Inc. exits the Federal Circuit proceeding without an adverse appellate judgment on infringement. The dismissal under Rule 42(b) means no precedent was set that could be used against Chicago Laminating in future disputes over these patents. Each party bears its own legal costs at the appellate level. Whether any underlying business terms accompanied the dismissal is not reflected in the public record.
No adverse appellate judgmentAgreed dismissal leaves market uncertainty over laminating patent scope
The absence of a Federal Circuit merits ruling means the scope and enforceability of ITW's glazing, foil laminate, and laminated-sheet patents remain untested at the appellate level. Competitors operating in light-dispersive glazing, foil laminate printing, or laminated sheet manufacturing cannot rely on this case to draw conclusions about patent validity. The three patents retain their presumption of validity and could support future enforcement actions.
Patent scope unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Illinois Tool Works, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Chicago Laminating, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian G. Arnold | Attorney | Counsel for Illinois Tool Works, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kyle Wayne Kellar | Attorney | Counsel for Illinois Tool Works, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Illinois Tool Works, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Bess | Attorney | Counsel for Chicago Laminating, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Ryan Laing | Attorney | Counsel for Chicago Laminating, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shane A. Brunner | Attorney | Counsel for Chicago Laminating, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP | Law Firm | Representing Chicago Laminating, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the laminating and glazing materials IP space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from Illinois Tool Works v. Chicago Laminating — covering ITW's laminating portfolio, glazing technology trends, and white-space opportunities.
Illinois Tool Works' laminating and glazing patent activity
Illinois Tool Works holds a broad industrial manufacturing portfolio spanning adhesive systems, laminating processes, and specialty glazing. The three asserted patents suggest active IP positioning in light-dispersive glazing and precision foil laminate printing. Monitoring ITW's recent filing activity in these sub-domains can reveal where the company is building next-generation IP barriers.
ITW laminating portfolioFiling trends in foil laminate and insulated glazing innovation
Insulated glazing unit technology and foil laminate printing sit at the intersection of construction materials, specialty packaging, and precision manufacturing. Patent filing activity in these areas has been influenced by demand for energy-efficient glazing and high-resolution laminate printing. Identifying the most active assignees and emerging claim strategies in this space helps competitors anticipate enforcement risk.
Glazing & laminate trendsChicago Laminating's patent position in laminated materials
Chicago Laminating, Inc. as a defendant in a multi-patent Federal Circuit appeal signals that the company operates in technology areas that overlap with ITW's IP. Understanding Chicago Laminating's own patent filings — if any — and their freedom to operate in laminating and glazing processes provides context for assessing competitive IP dynamics in this manufacturing segment.
Chicago Laminating IPDesign-around opportunities near ITW's laminating patent claims
With three ITW patents covering glazing unit light dispersion, foil laminate printing methods, and laminated sheet processes, adjacent white space likely exists in alternative dispersion mechanisms, single-pass laminate printing architectures, or novel substrate combinations not claimed in the ITW portfolio. Mapping claim boundaries against recent filings can surface protectable innovation corridors.
Laminating white spaceSimilar laminating and glazing patent infringement appeals at the Federal Circuit
Cases involving laminating, glazing, or foil printing patents dismissed or decided at the Federal Circuit — relevant benchmarks for ITW-style enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the laminating and glazing IP landscape
An agreed Federal Circuit dismissal after just 58 days suggests a swift resolution — but leaves three active ITW patents in play for the industry.
No Federal Circuit precedent: ITW's laminating patents remain enforceable
The Rule 42(b) dismissal produced no appellate opinion on validity or infringement. Companies in the laminating, glazing, and foil printing space cannot use this case as a shield against ITW's three asserted patents. All three patents retain their presumption of validity and represent live enforcement risk.
58-day resolution signals parties aligned early — monitor for renewed activity
A Federal Circuit appeal resolved in 58 days — before full briefing would typically complete — is consistent with a rapid private resolution. However, because no terms are disclosed, competitors and licensees should monitor future docket activity involving these patents for signs of continued enforcement or licensing campaigns by Illinois Tool Works.
Illinois v Chicago — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal (Case No. 23-2275) was dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement of the parties on 11 October 2023. No merits ruling was issued on infringement or validity of the three asserted patents. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs. The specific terms of any underlying agreement between the parties are not disclosed in the available public record.
Illinois Tool Works asserted three patents: US6002521A (light dispersive insulated glazing unit), US7544266B2 (method of producing foil laminate with double-sided printing), and US6491782B1 (process of making laminated sheet and product made by the process). The appeal was filed on 14 August 2023 and closed 58 days later without a merits decision.
No. A dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) is procedural and produces no merits adjudication. The Federal Circuit issued no opinion on the validity, enforceability, or scope of US6002521A, US7544266B2, or US6491782B1. All three patents retain their presumption of validity and remain potentially enforceable against third parties.
The docket records only that the parties agreed to dismiss under Rule 42(b). A 58-day resolution is consistent with an early agreed disposition — before full appellate briefing would typically be completed — but the precise reasons and any commercial terms underlying the agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The Federal Circuit order specified that each side shall bear its own costs. This means neither party was awarded appellate costs against the other. It does not address attorneys' fees or any other financial terms that may have been part of a private arrangement between the parties, which are not reflected in the public record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.