Jager Pro v. Bull Creek Welding: Wild Hog Trap Patent Dispute Settles After 6+ Years
Jager Pro, Inc. alleged that Bull Creek Welding & Fabrication’s Game Changer Systems infringed three US patents covering its M.I.N.E. automated hog trapping technology. Filed in February 2019 in the Arkansas Eastern District Court, the case ran 2,260 days before settling with prejudice in April 2025 with court-retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
Six-Year Hog Trap Patent War Ends in Confidential Settlement
Jager Pro, Inc., maker of the M.I.N.E. (Manually Initiated Nuisance Elimination) automated trapping system, filed suit against Bull Creek Welding & Fabrication, Inc. on 8 February 2019 in the Arkansas Eastern District Court before Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. The complaint alleged that Bull Creek’s Game Changer Systems infringed three US patents — US9814228B2, US9101126B2, and US10098339B2 — each covering aspects of automated or remotely operated wild hog trapping technology.
Following a mediated settlement process with the assistance of Magistrate Judge Deere, all parties resolved all claims. On 17 April 2025 Judge Marshall withdrew the magistrate reference, lifted a stay that had been in place, and dismissed all claims with prejudice — the strongest form of dismissal, barring any future re-filing of the same claims. Notably, the court retained jurisdiction for a period to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement, a standard mechanism that signals a structured deal with ongoing obligations rather than a simple walk-away.
At 2,260 days, the litigation’s duration is striking, suggesting protracted discovery, possible inter partes proceedings, or extended settlement negotiations — though the precise drivers are not fully disclosed in the public record. The involvement of major law firms on both sides — including King & Spalding and Ballard Spahr — is consistent with commercially significant stakes. The confidential settlement terms, including any licensing arrangements or financial consideration, remain unknown from the public docket.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 2260 days
2,260 days — over twice the median US patent infringement case duration of ~900 days
Dismissed with prejudice: what the settlement means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice ends all claims permanently
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes — Jager Pro cannot re-file these patent infringement claims against Bull Creek based on the same patents and accused products. The court’s retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement is significant: it means the deal contains ongoing obligations (e.g. royalties, design-arounds, or injunctive commitments) that a party could seek to enforce via a contempt or breach motion without starting new litigation.
Permanent bar on re-filingJager Pro secures a binding resolution protecting its IP
For Jager Pro, a with-prejudice settlement typically signals that the patent holder extracted meaningful consideration — whether a licence fee, royalty stream, design-around commitment, or market exit agreement from Bull Creek. The patents-in-suit remain valid and enforceable against third parties. Jager Pro retains the right to assert US9814228B2, US9101126B2, and US10098339B2 against other potential infringers in the hog trapping market.
Patents remain enforceableBull Creek resolves exposure but terms are confidential
Bull Creek Welding avoids a jury verdict and any publicly adjudicated finding of infringement. However, the with-prejudice dismissal and retained court jurisdiction suggest Bull Creek accepted binding obligations — potentially a licence, product modification, or payment — rather than a clean exit. The confidential nature of the settlement means competitors and the market cannot determine whether Bull Creek’s Game Changer Systems were effectively licensed or required redesign.
Binding obligations likelyJager Pro’s hog trap patents remain a credible enforcement threat
The willingness to litigate for over six years and the structured settlement outcome signals that Jager Pro treats its M.I.N.E. system patents as core commercial assets. Other manufacturers of remotely operated or automated wild hog trapping systems should treat US9814228B2, US9101126B2, and US10098339B2 as active enforcement risks. The retained court jurisdiction further underscores that this is not a walk-away — Jager Pro has a judicially-backed mechanism to police compliance.
Active enforcement postureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Jager Pro, Inc. | Company | Automated wildlife trapping systems manufacturer — holder of US9814228B2, US9101126B2, US10098339B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bull Creek Welding & Fabrication, Inc. | Company | Bull Creek Welding & Fabrication, Inc. — maker of the Game Changer hog trapping systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | D. Alan White | Attorney | Counsel for Jager Pro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Darjush Boushehri | Attorney | Counsel for Jager Pro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | E. B. Chiles , IV | Attorney | Counsel for Jager Pro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard W. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for Jager Pro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Ryan Younger | Attorney | Counsel for Jager Pro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ballard Spahr LLP | Law Firm | Representing Jager Pro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Jager Pro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Keith L. Grayson | Attorney | Counsel for Bull Creek Welding & Fabrication, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ojeiku Christopher Aisiku | Attorney | Counsel for Bull Creek Welding & Fabrication, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert William Morris | Attorney | Counsel for Bull Creek Welding & Fabrication, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott LLC | Law Firm | Representing Bull Creek Welding & Fabrication, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Grayson & Grayson PA | Law Firm | Representing Bull Creek Welding & Fabrication, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | King & Spalding LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bull Creek Welding & Fabrication, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. | Judge | Arkansas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s language — ‘settled all their claims’ with a dismissal ‘with prejudice’ and retained jurisdiction — is formulaic but substantive. The with-prejudice standard confirms no party can re-open these specific claims. The retention of jurisdiction is the operative signal: it indicates the settlement contains executory obligations that the court may be called upon to enforce, consistent with a structured licence or market conduct agreement rather than a simple mutual release.
US9814228B2, US9101126B2 & US10098339B2 — Automated Wild Hog Trapping Systems
The three patents-in-suit — US9814228B2 (application US15/071423), US9101126B2 (application US13/004747), and US10098339B2 (application US15/793372) — collectively cover Jager Pro’s M.I.N.E. system: a remotely monitored and triggered wild hog trapping platform. The application dates span from roughly 2011 to 2017, indicating a sustained, layered patent filing strategy that built claim coverage across successive product generations. The technology sits at the intersection of agricultural pest management, IoT-connected hardware, and trap mechanism engineering.
For competitors in the feral hog control market — a sector driven by significant agricultural damage liability — these patents represent a meaningful barrier to commercialising automated, remotely triggered trapping solutions. The fact that all three survived more than six years of active litigation without a public invalidity determination strengthens their perceived enforceability. Any manufacturer developing camera-integrated, app-controlled, or sensor-triggered hog trapping equipment should assess claim overlap with these patents before market entry.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9814228B2, US9101126B2, and US10098339B2?
If your company designs, manufactures, or imports remotely operated wildlife trapping systems — particularly those incorporating automated gate triggers, camera monitoring, or mobile-app control — these three Jager Pro patents warrant a formal freedom-to-operate analysis. The six-year enforcement record and structured settlement confirm that Jager Pro actively polices this portfolio. The niche market context does not reduce risk; in specialised sectors, even a single enforcement action can represent an existential commercial threat.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim language of US9814228B2, US9101126B2, and US10098339B2, surface relevant prior art that may support design-around strategies, and identify the full scope of Jager Pro’s patent family including any continuations or divisionals. This allows your R&D and legal teams to make informed go/no-go decisions before committing to product development or market launch in the automated hog trapping space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9814228B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: automated trapping & agricultural equipment IP disputes
Cases involving automated agricultural equipment patents in US district courts, with comparable multi-patent enforcement and structured settlement outcomes.
What this case signals for the wildlife trapping equipment IP landscape
A six-year fight over hog trap patents, ending in a structured settlement, reveals a commercially serious IP enforcement posture in an often-overlooked sector.
Three-patent portfolio amplifies licensing leverage in niche markets
Jager Pro’s assertion of three patents simultaneously — covering different claim scopes across the M.I.N.E. system — is a classic portfolio enforcement strategy that raises the litigation cost and complexity for defendants. In niche agricultural equipment markets, this approach can be decisive: competitors rarely have the resources for prolonged multi-patent defence, making early settlement more likely.
Court-retained jurisdiction creates ongoing compliance risk for defendants
When a court retains jurisdiction post-settlement, any alleged breach of the settlement agreement can be resolved via motion rather than a new lawsuit — a faster and lower-cost enforcement path for the patent holder. Product teams at Bull Creek and any successor entities should treat the settlement as a continuing legal obligation, not a closed chapter.
Jager v Bull — key questions answered
Jager Pro asserted three US patents: US9814228B2, US9101126B2, and US10098339B2. All three relate to automated and remotely operated wild hog trapping systems, specifically covering the M.I.N.E. (Manually Initiated Nuisance Elimination) platform. Bull Creek’s accused products were its Game Changer Systems.
Dismissal with prejudice means Jager Pro is permanently barred from re-filing the same patent infringement claims against Bull Creek based on these patents and accused products. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, it constitutes a final resolution. Here, the court also retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, indicating binding post-settlement obligations remain in place.
No court adjudication of infringement or validity was publicly issued. The case settled before any verdict, meaning no finding of infringement or non-infringement was made. The settlement terms — including any admission, licence, or design-around requirement — are confidential and not available on the public docket.
The public record does not disclose the specific procedural drivers of the 2,260-day duration. Factors consistent with this timeline in multi-patent district court cases include extended discovery, potential parallel USPTO proceedings, claim construction disputes, and protracted settlement negotiations. The involvement of major litigation firms on both sides suggests the case was vigorously contested throughout.
Yes. The settlement and with-prejudice dismissal resolved claims only as between Jager Pro and Bull Creek Welding. Patents US9814228B2, US9101126B2, and US10098339B2 remain in force and enforceable against third parties. Jager Pro retains the right to assert these patents against other manufacturers of competing automated hog trapping systems.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.