JB Custom Offshore Rigging v. Sterling Tackle — Fishing Lure Patents Settled in 249 Days
JB Custom Offshore Rigging and Fishing Tackle Inc. sued Sterling Tackle, LLC in the District of New Jersey, asserting two fishing lure patents and trade dress rights in its Chatter Lures Side Tracker product line. The parties reached a settlement within 249 days of filing, with the court administratively terminating the action in January 2025.
Fishing Lure Trade Dress and Patent Dispute Resolved by Settlement
On 23 May 2024, JB Custom Offshore Rigging and Fishing Tackle Inc. commenced an infringement action against Sterling Tackle, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 2:24-cv-06379). The complaint asserted two issued patents — US11089771B2 and US11825824B2 — alongside trade dress rights in the appearance and performance attributes consumers associate with the plaintiff’s Chatter Lures Side Tracker lure line.
On 27 January 2025, the court issued an administrative termination order after the parties reported that the action had been settled. The order expressly noted that the termination did not constitute a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, and directed the parties to file formal dismissal papers within 60 days. If no such papers are filed, the court indicated it would dismiss the action with prejudice and without costs absent further notice.
At 249 days from filing to administrative termination, the case resolved relatively quickly for multi-patent district court litigation, suggesting the parties may have reached commercial terms without extensive discovery or claim construction proceedings. The precise settlement terms remain confidential, and the public record does not disclose any royalty arrangement, licensing agreement, or injunctive relief. Whether formal Rule 41 dismissal papers have been filed within the court-ordered 60-day window is not reflected in the available case data.
Filing to Case Settled in 249 days
249 days from filing to administrative termination — faster than median district court patent resolutions
Case settled: what the administrative termination order means for both parties
Administrative termination is not a Rule 41 dismissal — yet
The court’s 27 January 2025 order expressly states the termination does not constitute a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The parties retain 60 days to file formal dismissal papers. If none are filed, the court will dismiss with prejudice and without costs by default. This mechanism preserves the court’s docket while giving parties time to consummate settlement terms.
Conditional terminationJB Custom retains patent rights; terms undisclosed
As the party that initiated suit asserting two fishing lure patents and trade dress, JB Custom Offshore likely secured some commercial resolution to proceed to settlement. The patents US11089771B2 and US11825824B2 remain in force and are not invalidated by settlement. However, the public record does not confirm licensing fees, royalties, or whether an injunction against Sterling Tackle was agreed.
Patents surviveSterling Tackle avoids adjudication on the merits
Settlement before any substantive rulings means Sterling Tackle avoids a court finding of infringement or invalidity. No claim construction order or summary judgment record was entered. This outcome is consistent with a defendant seeking commercial certainty and avoiding the costs and risks of full district court litigation on two asserted patents plus trade dress claims.
No merits rulingPatents remain enforceable; sector watch warranted
Because the case settled without a validity or infringement ruling, US11089771B2 and US11825824B2 retain full presumptive validity. Other fishing lure manufacturers selling products that may overlap with the Side Tracker trade dress or the patented lure configurations should note that JB Custom has demonstrated willingness to enforce its portfolio through litigation. The settlement does not create any public licensing precedent.
Enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | JB CUSTOM OFFSHORE RIGGING AND FISHING TACKLE INC. | Company | Specialty fishing tackle manufacturer — holder of US11089771B2 and US11825824B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Sterling Tackle, LLC | Company | Sterling Tackle, LLC — fishing tackle company alleged to infringe Chatter Lures Side Tracker IPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael James Gesualdo. | Attorney | Counsel for JB CUSTOM OFFSHORE RIGGING AND FISHING TACKLE INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Robinson Miller LLC | Law Firm | Representing JB CUSTOM OFFSHORE RIGGING AND FISHING TACKLE INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher J. Dalton | Attorney | Counsel for Sterling Tackle, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC | Law Firm | Representing Sterling Tackle, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order records that settlement was reported by the parties but does not disclose financial terms, licensing arrangements, or injunctive relief. The 60-day conditional structure — under which the action defaults to dismissal with prejudice absent formal Rule 41 papers — is a standard NJ District Court administrative mechanism. It preserves court supervision while the parties finalise documentation. No merits finding on infringement, validity, or trade dress was made, leaving both patents in full legal force.
US11089771B2 & US11825824B2 — Fishing Lure Technology and Design
US11089771B2 (application US16/531516) and US11825824B2 (application US18/082914) both protect innovations in the fishing lure space, with the later application number of US18/082914 consistent with a continuation or continuation-in-part filing strategy. The patents underpin the Chatter Lures Side Tracker product line, covering the appearance and performance characteristics that JB Custom asserts consumers recognise as distinctive. The filing timeline suggests an active prosecution strategy to maintain and extend claim coverage across the product family.
In a sector where product differentiation is closely tied to lure action, visual design, and brand recognition, holding two issued patents alongside trade dress rights creates a layered IP barrier that is commercially significant. Competitors entering the offshore fishing lure market with similar side-tracking or chattering action lure configurations face exposure under both patents. The settlement in this case, without any invalidity ruling, means the patents emerge from litigation with their presumptive validity intact — a meaningful signal for the specialty fishing tackle sector.
Should you run an FTO against US11089771B2 and US11825824B2?
Any manufacturer or distributor developing fishing lures with side-tracking action, chattering retrieve characteristics, or visual trade dress that approximates the Side Tracker line should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against both patents. The case demonstrates JB Custom’s enforcement intent, and the lack of any invalidity ruling means there is no established prior art shield from this litigation record. Retailers sourcing similar products from third parties should also assess indemnification clauses in their supply agreements.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11089771B2 and US11825824B2 against your product specifications, identify related continuations or divisionals in the same patent family, and surface prior art that may support design-around strategies. Given the trade dress dimension of this case, Eureka’s landscape analysis can also flag other JB Custom or Chatter Lures IP filings that may not yet be in suit.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11089771B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Fishing Tackle and Sporting Goods Patent Cases in NJ District Court
Explore related patent infringement cases in the fishing tackle and sporting goods sector litigated in the District of New Jersey and comparable federal venues.
What this case signals for the fishing tackle IP landscape
A fast settlement in a dual-patent, trade dress action suggests JB Custom’s portfolio carries credible enforcement weight in the specialty fishing lure market.
Active enforcement of niche fishing lure patents is commercially viable
JB Custom’s willingness to assert two patents plus trade dress in federal court — and reach settlement in under nine months — signals that niche sporting goods IP can be effectively monetised and defended. Competitors in the offshore fishing lure segment should audit their product designs against US11089771B2 and US11825824B2 before market entry.
Trade dress layered with utility patents raises litigation risk significantly
By combining patent infringement claims with trade dress assertions covering the Side Tracker’s appearance and performance associations, JB Custom created a multi-front enforcement posture. Defendants face simultaneous IP and unfair competition exposure. Product designers in the fishing tackle sector should treat visual distinctiveness as a separate IP risk layer alongside utility patent clearance.
JB v Sterling — key questions answered
JB Custom Offshore asserted two issued US patents: US11089771B2 (application US16/531516) and US11825824B2 (application US18/082914). Both relate to fishing lure technology underlying the Chatter Lures Side Tracker product line. Trade dress claims covering the lure’s distinctive appearance and performance associations were also included in the complaint.
The parties reported settlement to the New Jersey District Court, which issued an administrative termination order on 27 January 2025. The order directed the parties to file formal Rule 41 dismissal papers within 60 days. If no papers are filed, the court indicated it would dismiss with prejudice and without costs. The precise financial or licensing terms of the settlement are not publicly disclosed.
No. A settlement does not constitute a court ruling on patent validity or infringement. Both US11089771B2 and US11825824B2 retain their presumptive validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. No claim construction order, summary judgment ruling, or invalidity finding was entered in this case, meaning the patents emerge from litigation legally unchanged.
The complaint describes the Side Tracker trade dress as the appearance and performance characteristics that consumers promptly recognise and associate with top-tier, high-quality lures sold by JB Custom under the Chatter Lures brand. Trade dress claims in this context typically cover the distinctive visual elements and functional aesthetic of the lure that distinguish it in the marketplace, though the specific protected elements are not further detailed in the public record.
The court’s 27 January 2025 order administratively closed the docket but expressly stated this was not a Rule 41 dismissal. The parties have 60 days to file formal dismissal papers — typically a stipulation of dismissal. If they do not, the court will dismiss the action with prejudice and without costs automatically. This mechanism is common in the District of New Jersey to manage settlement consummation while clearing the active docket.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.