Jager Pro v. Backwoods Solutions: Wildlife Trap Patents Invalidated by Federal Circuit in Landmark Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Jager Pro, Inc. v. Backwoods Solutions, LLC |
| Case Number | 1:20-cv-00017 (N.D. Miss.) |
| Court | Mississippi Northern District Court, Federal Circuit (Appeal) |
| Duration | Feb 2020 – Mar 2024 4 years 1 month |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Patents Invalidated |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Big Pig Trap, HogEye Camera Setup |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Wildlife management solutions company asserting patent rights over hog trapping and surveillance technology.
🛡️ Defendant
Operated in the same niche market, commercializing competing trap systems and camera monitoring setups.
Patents at Issue
This case involved two U.S. patents covering hog trapping technology, both ultimately found invalid by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
- • US9,814,228 B2 — Directed toward hog trap technology with claims covering structural and operational elements of large-animal containment systems.
- • US10,098,339 B2 — A continuation-related patent extending protection over additional aspects of the trap and monitoring ecosystem.
Developing a new wildlife trap?
Check if your design might infringe existing or newly filed patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The district court entered judgment in favor of defendants Backwoods Solutions, LLC and Wildlife Dominion Management, LLC, dismissing the case with prejudice. No damages were awarded to Jager Pro. The dismissal with prejudice forecloses any refiling of the same claims, rendering the outcome final and absolute.
Key Legal Issues
The dispositive legal event was not a trial on infringement merits but rather the invalidation of both asserted patents through IPR proceedings (PTAB Case Nos. IPR2020-01470 and IPR2020-01471). The PTAB found sufficient grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) and/or § 102 (anticipation) to cancel the claims. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance in consolidated appeals 2022-0710 and 2022-1711 conclusively settled the validity question. Once the Federal Circuit mandate issued, the district court had no viable path forward and entered judgment for the defendants.
Strategic Turning Point: The defendants’ decision to file IPR petitions proved to be the decisive strategic move. Rather than engaging in costly claim construction battles and fact discovery at the district level, the defense successfully attacked the patents at their foundation — a calculated and ultimately successful litigation strategy.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in wildlife trap design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in Agri-Tech patents
- Understand claim construction patterns
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Trap systems with remote monitoring
2 Patents Invalidated
Via IPR proceedings
Cleared Competitive Space
For products targeting invalidated claims
✅ Key Takeaways
IPR invalidation, when affirmed by the Federal Circuit, mandates dismissal of related district court infringement claims.
Search IPR case law →Defendants should evaluate IPR petition viability within the one-year statutory window upon service of complaint.
Explore IPR strategy →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved US Patent Nos. 9,814,228 B2 and 10,098,339 B2, covering hog trapping and wildlife management technology.
The Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB’s invalidation of both patents in IPR proceedings (IPR2020-01470 and IPR2020-01471), leaving no valid patent to enforce. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice.
Patent holders in this space must ensure prosecution quality sufficient to survive IPR. Competitors can monitor PTAB outcomes to identify enforceable versus vulnerable IP in the market.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR2020-01470 and IPR2020-01471
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Cases 2022-0710 and 2022-1711
- PACER Case No. 1:20-cv-00017 (N.D. Miss.)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Obviousness) and § 102 (Anticipation)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.