Jager Pro vs. Backwoods Solutions: IPR Invalidation Ends Hog Trap Patent Dispute
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.), 2022-0710 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | N.D. Miss., Fed. Cir., PTAB |
| Duration | Feb 2020 – Mar 2024 4 years 2 months |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Patents Invalidated |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | HogEye Camera Setup and Competing Wild Hog Traps |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Manufacturer of wild hog control equipment, including integrated trap systems and remote-monitoring camera setups marketed under the “Big Pig Trap” brand.
🛡️ Defendant
Wildlife management solution provider allegedly offering competing products, specifically referencing the “HogEye Camera Setup”.
The Patents at Issue
This dispute centered on two patents covering wild hog trapping technology, a niche but commercially significant area driven by substantial agricultural damage. Both patents relate to innovations in wild hog trap systems, including mechanical or electronic triggering and containment mechanisms.
- • US 9,814,228 — Wild hog trap systems with triggering and containment.
- • US 10,098,339 — Related patent covering additional aspects of hog trapping and remote monitoring.
Developing wildlife management tech?
Check if your product design or technology might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
On March 21, 2024, the Northern District of Mississippi entered judgment in favor of defendants Backwoods Solutions, LLC and Wildlife Dominion Management, LLC, dismissing the action with prejudice. No damages were awarded to the plaintiff. The dismissal with prejudice forecloses any future re-filing of the same infringement claims based on the invalidated patents.
Key Legal Issues
The dispositive legal event was not a district court ruling on infringement or claim construction — it was the USPTO PTAB’s invalidation of both asserted patents, subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The IPR proceedings — IPR2020-01470 and IPR2020-01471 — were the strategic fulcrum of this case. Once the mandate issued from the appellate court, the district court had no viable basis to sustain the infringement action. Invalid patents cannot be infringed as a matter of law.
This case reinforces the primacy of IPR as a patent-invalidation vehicle in contemporary patent litigation. The defendants successfully neutralized a two-patent assertion using IPR petitions filed before the USPTO rather than prevailing at trial. For patent practitioners, the case highlights that even niche agricultural technology patents are susceptible to IPR challenge if claim drafting does not sufficiently distinguish over existing prior art. The one-year statutory deadline from service of complaint (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)) must be strictly observed.
IPR Vulnerability & Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in agricultural technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this IPR invalidation.
- View all IPR records for these patents
- Analyze PTAB invalidation trends in agritech
- Understand claim amendment strategies post-IPR
🔍 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
Wild hog trap systems with remote monitoring
2 IPR Proceedings
Targeting key claims in this space
Strategic Opportunities
Post-IPR design-around options available
✅ Key Takeaways
IPR invalidation affirmed by the Federal Circuit results in mandatory dismissal of parallel district court infringement claims — coordinate dual-track proceedings strategically.
Search related case law →Dual-patent assertions are not inherently safer; continuation claims can fall to the same prior art undermining the parent.
Explore IPR outcomes →Frequently Asked Questions
U.S. Patent Nos. 9,814,228 and 10,098,339, covering wild hog trapping and remote monitoring technology, were the two patents asserted by Jager Pro, Inc.
The Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB’s invalidation of both asserted patents in IPR proceedings (IPR2020-01470 and IPR2020-01471). Once the mandate issued, the district court entered judgment for defendants, as invalid patents cannot sustain an infringement claim.
It reinforces the effectiveness of IPR as a defense strategy and signals that patent holders in niche agricultural sectors must ensure robust claim differentiation over prior art to survive post-grant validity challenges.
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
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Case 2022-0710 and 2022-1711
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — PTAB Decisions IPR2020-01470 and IPR2020-01471
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
- PACER — Case No. 1:20-cv-00017 (Northern District of Mississippi)
- 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.