Illinois Tool Works v. Termax: Fastener Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Illinois Tool Works Inc. sued Termax LLC, Termax Company, and Lisi Automotive SA in the Northern District of Illinois over a plastic ‘Bird Beak’ sealing fastener infringing two patents — one design, one utility. After more than three years of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice, each side absorbing its own legal costs.
Three-year fastener patent fight ends in bilateral walk-away
Illinois Tool Works Inc. (ITW), one of the world’s largest industrial manufacturers, filed this infringement action on 11 September 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. ITW asserted two patents — design patent USD0897826S and utility patent US11578740B2 — against Termax LLC, Termax Company, and French automotive supplier Lisi Automotive SA. The accused products were Termax’s plastic ‘Bird Beak’ sealing fasteners sold under part numbers 71216, 71224, and 71225, a category of push-through connection assembly fasteners used widely in automotive interior trim applications.
The case closed on 2 January 2024 via a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the mechanism that allows all parties who have appeared to agree to dismissal without requiring a court order. Critically, the stipulation specified dismissal with prejudice, meaning ITW permanently forfeits its right to reassert the same claims against Termax on these patents. The cost-bearing arrangement — each side paying its own way — suggests neither party extracted a financial concession in the final agreement.
A resolution reached more than three years after filing, without a published merits ruling, is consistent with a negotiated settlement or cross-licensing arrangement whose terms remain confidential. The public record is silent on whether any license, royalty, or design-around obligation was exchanged. The involvement of French parent company Lisi Automotive alongside both Termax entities suggests the dispute had supply-chain and international dimensions that may have shaped the ultimate resolution timeline and structure.
Filing to filing in 1208 days
Days from filing to closed — over three years of active litigation before stipulated dismissal
Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Illinois Tool Works, Inc. | Company | Industrial manufacturing conglomerate — holder of USD0897826S and US11578740B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Termax, LLC | Company | Termax LLC / Termax Company: U.S. automotive fastener manufacturer; Lisi Automotive SA: French parent supplierSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amber Justina Carpenter | Attorney | Counsel for Illinois Tool Works, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chelsea Madeline Murray | Attorney | Counsel for Termax, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeremy R. Kriegel | Attorney | Counsel for Termax, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Coleman Lincoln Hughley | Attorney | Counsel for Termax, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Raymond R. Ricordati , III | Attorney | Counsel for Termax, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas L. Duston | Attorney | Counsel for Termax, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Virginia M. Kendall | Chief Judge | Illinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The stipulation’s language — ‘all claims in the above-captioned action are hereby dismissed with prejudice’ — is broadly drafted and covers every claim ITW asserted. The phrase ‘each side shall bear its own costs’ confirms no financial remedy was memorialised in the public record. For Termax, this outcome extinguishes the litigation risk from these specific patents and products. For ITW, the with-prejudice concession is permanent but leaves open enforcement of the same patents against different parties or different products.
USD0897826S & US11578740B2 — plastic sealing fastener design and utility patents
USD0897826S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a push-through sealing fastener — the visual form factor of the ‘Bird Beak’ style clip used in automotive panel attachment. US11578740B2 is a utility patent (application US16/897947) protecting the functional architecture of the push-through connection assembly. Together they cover both the look and the mechanical operation of a fastener category used extensively in automotive interior trim, door panels, and body sealing applications where vibration-resistant, tool-free installation is required.
In the automotive supplier ecosystem, commodity fastener designs are frequently copied across tiers. ITW’s dual-patent assertion signals a deliberate strategy to create overlapping IP barriers against direct functional and aesthetic imitation. For Tier 1 and Tier 2 automotive suppliers specifying or sourcing push-through fasteners, these patents represent a live enforcement risk — particularly as ITW has demonstrated willingness to litigate against well-resourced competitors including those with international parent structures.
Should you run an FTO against USD0897826S and US11578740B2?
Any R&D team or procurement function sourcing, designing, or manufacturing push-through sealing fasteners for automotive applications should treat these two patents as active risk assets. The dismissal with prejudice binds only Termax and its affiliates — it creates no precedent and grants no licence to anyone else. Fastener manufacturers, Tier 1 OEM suppliers, and aftermarket parts producers with products resembling the Bird Beak geometry face independent exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to map your fastener product designs against both the ornamental claims of USD0897826S and the functional claims of US11578740B2 in a single workflow. Claim monitoring alerts can track any continuation, divisional, or related application ITW may file in this fastener family — ensuring your product pipeline stays ahead of evolving enforcement risk before it reaches litigation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0897826S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar automotive fastener patent infringement cases in U.S. courts
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 automotive fastener IP landscape
ITW’s dual-patent strategy and three-year enforcement campaign offer a clear template for how large industrials protect fastener IP against direct competitors.
Pairing design and utility patents strengthens fastener enforcement leverage
ITW asserted both a design patent (USD0897826S) and a utility patent (US11578740B2) against the same accused products. This dual-patent strategy is increasingly common in commodity hardware disputes: design patents are fast to enforce and hard to design around visually, while utility patents protect functional claims. Together they raise the cost and complexity of a defendant’s invalidity or non-infringement defence.
Targeting parent companies alongside subsidiaries increases settlement pressure
By naming Lisi Automotive SA alongside both Termax entities, ITW expanded the litigation risk to a French industrial group with broader commercial interests. This multi-entity approach typically accelerates settlement by raising the stakes beyond a single operating subsidiary and implicating supply agreements, customer relationships, and cross-border corporate exposure.
Illinois v Termax — key questions answered
ITW asserted two patents: design patent USD0897826S and utility patent US11578740B2 (application US16/897947). Both patents cover push-through sealing fasteners. The accused products were Termax’s plastic Bird Beak sealing fasteners sold under part numbers 71216, 71224, and 71225.
The case was dismissed by joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All parties agreed to the dismissal with prejudice, meaning ITW permanently waived the right to refile these claims. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement, licence, or design-around agreement was reached — that information is confidential.
It means neither ITW nor Termax sought or obtained attorney’s fees or cost recovery from the other side. Under U.S. patent law, fee-shifting requires a finding that the case is ‘exceptional’ under 35 U.S.C. § 285. A mutual own-costs provision is consistent with a negotiated resolution where neither party held a commanding legal position.
No. The dismissal binds only the named parties — Termax LLC, Termax Company, and Lisi Automotive SA. It creates no licence, no invalidity ruling, and no precedent that benefits third parties. Other manufacturers whose push-through fastener products resemble the patented designs remain independently exposed to infringement claims from ITW.
Three defendants were named: Termax LLC, Termax Company, and Lisi Automotive SA. The Termax entities are U.S. automotive fastener manufacturers; Lisi Automotive SA is a French automotive components group identified as their apparent corporate parent. All three were included in the final stipulated dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.