InMusic Brands v. Roland Corp US: Electronic Drum Patent Battle Ends After 8.5 Years
InMusic Brands, Inc. filed suit against Roland Corporation US in January 2017, asserting three patents covering electronic drum pads and cymbal technology against Roland’s PD-140DS, VH-13-MG, and KD-A22 product lines. After 3,095 days of litigation in the Rhode Island District Court, both parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, with no award of costs or attorneys’ fees.
Three Electronic Drum Patents, One Stipulated End After Nearly a Decade
InMusic Brands, Inc. — a Rhode Island-based manufacturer of professional audio and musical instrument equipment — filed this infringement action on January 10, 2017 in the US District Court for the District of Rhode Island. InMusic asserted three patents (US8039724B1, US9424827B2, and US8785758B2) against Roland Corporation US, targeting Roland’s PD-140DS V-Pad electronic snare pad, VH-13-MG electronic hi-hat cymbal, and KD-A22 Kick Drum Converter — core products in Roland’s V-Drums electronic percussion line.
The case concluded on July 2, 2025, when both parties filed a stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) dismissing all claims, counterclaims, and defenses with prejudice. The stipulation explicitly excluded any award of costs, interest, or attorneys’ fees to either side. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law, meaning InMusic cannot refile substantially the same claims against Roland on these patents for these products.
The 3,095-day duration — nearly eight and a half years — is notably prolonged for a district court patent case, suggesting the parties navigated significant procedural complexity, potential IPR proceedings, claim construction disputes, or extended settlement negotiations before reaching resolution. The no-costs, no-fees term is consistent with a negotiated settlement or cross-licensing arrangement, though the public record does not disclose the underlying commercial terms that drove the parties to this mutual resolution.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 3095 days
8.5 years — unusually long district court lifecycle before final resolution
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice is a final, court-endorsed resolution
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(2) operates as a final judgment on the merits. The court endorses the parties’ agreement to end all claims permanently. Neither party retains the right to refile the dismissed claims. All counterclaims and defenses are extinguished simultaneously. This is the standard vehicle for concluding a negotiated resolution in patent litigation when parties wish to achieve finality without a trial verdict.
Final on the meritsInMusic forecloses re-litigation but retains its patents
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, InMusic Brands cannot reassert US8039724B1, US9424827B2, or US8785758B2 against Roland’s accused products in a new action. However, the underlying patents remain in force and enforceable against other parties. If private settlement terms exist — such as a license or cross-license — those would not appear in the public docket. The no-fees provision suggests neither side secured a clear litigation win on the merits.
Patents enforceable vs. third partiesRoland secures permanent protection from these claims, no cost liability
Roland Corporation US obtains a permanent bar against InMusic reasserting these three patents on the accused drum and cymbal products. The explicit waiver of costs and attorneys’ fees means Roland bears no monetary liability from this litigation on the public record. Roland’s V-Drums product line — including the PD-140DS, VH-13-MG, and KD-A22 — is shielded from further suit by InMusic on these patents, providing commercial certainty going forward.
No monetary liabilityEight-year litigation cost signals high strategic stakes in electronic percussion IP
The willingness of two major electronic drum competitors to sustain litigation for nearly a decade before resolving by stipulation — without any public cost award — suggests the commercial value of the underlying patent portfolio and product lines justified prolonged dispute. For other players in the electronic percussion and digital musical instrument space, InMusic’s three patents remain live enforcement tools. Competitors developing e-drum pads, hi-hat controllers, or kick conversion systems should assess FTO exposure against this portfolio.
Patents still active for third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InMusic Brands, Inc. | Company | Musical instrument and pro-audio equipment manufacturer — holder of US8039724B1, US9424827B2, US8785758B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Roland, Corp. US | Company | Roland Corporation US — US subsidiary of Roland Corp., manufacturer of V-Drums electronic percussion productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam M. Ramos | Attorney | Counsel for InMusic Brands, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christine K. Bush | Attorney | Counsel for InMusic Brands, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Craig M. Scott | Attorney | Counsel for InMusic Brands, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gina K. Kim | Attorney | Counsel for InMusic Brands, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Laurel M. Gilbert | Attorney | Counsel for InMusic Brands, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Laurel M. Rogowski | Attorney | Counsel for InMusic Brands, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rebecca F. Briggs | Attorney | Counsel for InMusic Brands, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hinckley Allen & Snyder, LLP | Law Firm | Representing InMusic Brands, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Geoffrey M. Raux | Attorney | Counsel for Roland, Corp. USSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kimberly K. Dodd | Attorney | Counsel for Roland, Corp. USSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tiffany Kim Sung | Attorney | Counsel for Roland, Corp. USSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Victor de Gyarfas | Attorney | Counsel for Roland, Corp. USSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William J. Lynch | Attorney | Counsel for Roland, Corp. USSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Foley & Lardner LLP | Law Firm | Representing Roland, Corp. USSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | WJ Lynch Law, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Roland, Corp. USSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Rhode Island District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s explicit language — ‘dismissed with prejudice, no interest, costs or attorneys’ fees’ — is precise and deliberate. Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Federal law, permanently barring InMusic from reasserting these claims against Roland on the accused products. The explicit exclusion of costs and fees is atypical in pure plaintiff-win or defendant-win scenarios and is more consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution. The simultaneous dismissal of all counterclaims suggests Roland’s invalidity or non-infringement defenses were also withdrawn, leaving no public merits determination on any of the three patents.
US8039724B1, US9424827B2 & US8785758B2 — Electronic Drum & Cymbal Technology Patents
The three patents at issue — US8039724B1 (App. No. 12/562370), US9424827B2 (App. No. 14/297176), and US8785758B2 (App. No. 13/220990) — cover distinct subsystems of a complete electronic drum kit: pad sensor and trigger mechanics, hi-hat cymbal control and position sensing, and acoustic drum head conversion for electronic triggering. The application numbers span filings across multiple years, suggesting InMusic built this portfolio incrementally to track product development in the electronic percussion space.
For competitors in the electronic drum and digital percussion market, this portfolio represents a layered enforcement risk: a single product line — as Roland’s V-Drums demonstrated — can implicate all three patents simultaneously. InMusic, which markets competing brands including Alesis and Akai Professional, holds these patents as a strategic asset. The survival of all three patents through 8.5 years of litigation without invalidation in the public record suggests the claims withstood scrutiny, though no merits ruling was issued.
Should your team run an FTO against US8039724B1, US9424827B2 & US8785758B2?
Any company designing or manufacturing electronic drum pads, hi-hat cymbal controllers, or acoustic-to-electronic kick drum conversion systems should treat these three InMusic patents as live FTO targets. Roland’s accused products — covering exactly these three hardware categories — were the subject of 8.5 years of active litigation. The patents are enforceable against third parties and InMusic has demonstrated willingness to litigate aggressively in this space.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of all three patents against your product architecture, identify file history limitations, and flag relevant prior art that may support design-around or invalidity positions. Given the multi-patent nature of InMusic’s portfolio and its apparent strategic intent to cover the full electronic drum kit, a portfolio-level FTO — not a single-patent analysis — is the appropriate starting point for any R&D team active in this category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8039724B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Electronic Percussion & Musical Instrument Patent Cases
Explore related patent infringement disputes in electronic musical instrument hardware litigated at US district court level, with comparable multi-patent assertion strategies.
What this case signals for the electronic percussion IP landscape
An 8.5-year district court battle between two leading e-drum brands highlights the strategic depth of electronic percussion patent portfolios.
Prolonged litigation without a fee award typically signals negotiated resolution
When patent cases run for 3,000+ days and terminate via mutual stipulation with no cost award, it is consistent with a private commercial resolution — such as a license, cross-license, or covenant not to sue — rather than a clean litigation win for either side. In-house IP teams should treat the public record as incomplete.
Three asserted patents create compounding FTO risk for e-drum competitors
InMusic asserted US8039724B1, US9424827B2, and US8785758B2 — covering snare pad, hi-hat, and kick conversion technology. With all three patents surviving this litigation intact and enforceable against third parties, manufacturers of electronic percussion equipment face a multi-patent FTO gap that warrants immediate analysis.
InMusic v Roland — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation on July 2, 2025, after 3,095 days of litigation. Both parties agreed under FRCP 41(a)(2) to dismiss all claims, counterclaims, and defenses, with no award of costs, interest, or attorneys’ fees to either side. No merits determination was issued by the court.
InMusic asserted three US patents: US8039724B1 (App. No. 12/562370), US9424827B2 (App. No. 14/297176), and US8785758B2 (App. No. 13/220990). These patents cover electronic drum pad, hi-hat cymbal controller, and kick drum conversion technology respectively.
InMusic accused Roland’s PD-140DS V-Pad electronic snare pad, VH-13-MG electronic hi-hat cymbal, and KD-A22 Kick Drum Converter — three products from Roland’s V-Drums electronic percussion line — of infringing the asserted patents.
No. A dismissal with prejudice bars InMusic from reasserting these specific claims against Roland’s accused products in a new action. However, the three patents remain in force and fully enforceable against third parties. Competitors manufacturing similar electronic drum and cymbal hardware should assess their FTO exposure against this portfolio.
The public record does not disclose the specific causes of delay. Cases of this duration in patent litigation are often associated with inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO, extended claim construction briefing, summary judgment practice, or protracted settlement negotiations. The no-costs, no-fees stipulation is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution rather than a litigated outcome.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.