JT IP Holding v. Florence: Runoff Water Patent Case Dismissed
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | JT IP Holding, LLC v. Thomas Florence |
| Case Number | 1:20-cv-10433 (D. Mass.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Duration | Mar 3, 2020 – Jan 18, 2026 2,147 days (~5.9 years) |
| Outcome | Dismissed with Prejudice (Stipulated) |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Runoff Water Management System / FloPack, LLC Products |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
An intellectual property holding entity, often focused on patent assertion or licensing operations. Co-plaintiff Jeffrey S. Eldredge is likely an owner or inventor.
🛡️ Defendants
FloPack, LLC is a commercial entity, likely involved in packaging or fluid management products. Individuals Thomas Florence and Kimberly Perry were also named.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on **U.S. Patent No. 10,364,563** (Application No. 15/863,882), which covers a **runoff water management system**. This technology is applicable to stormwater control, drainage infrastructure, agricultural water diversion, and environmental compliance systems. Patents in this area are increasingly relevant due to intensifying regulatory pressures.
- • US 10,364,563 — Runoff water management system
Developing a similar water management product?
Check if your system design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case was resolved through a **joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice** pursuant to **Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)**. This means all claims were permanently extinguished, and the plaintiff cannot refile. No damages, interest, costs, or attorneys’ fees were publicly awarded, and all appellate rights were waived. This outcome is characteristic of a negotiated settlement, where specific financial or licensing terms are usually confidential.
Legal Significance
The absence of a merits-based ruling means **U.S. Patent No. 10,364,563 has not been judicially adjudicated as valid or invalid**, nor has infringement been found or denied. This is a critical distinction: the patent remains an active asset that could be asserted against other parties in future proceedings, subject to any limitations arising from the release agreement’s scope. The nearly six-year duration of the case highlights the endurance required in patent litigation, especially for IP holding entities.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in runoff water management. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in runoff water technology
- See which companies are most active in water management IP
- Understand patent claim scope and validity challenges
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own water management technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents (like ‘563)
- Get actionable risk assessment report
Active Patent
US 10,364,563 remains unlitigated on merits
Water Tech Sector
Increasing IP assertion activity
FTO Clearance Essential
Before commercializing products
✅ Key Takeaways
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissals with prejudice are a clean exit mechanism that preserves patent validity for future assertion.
Search related case law →Multi-defendant cases involving holding entities and individual defendants require careful cost-benefit analysis across a potentially years-long timeline.
Explore litigation strategies →Frequently Asked Questions
U.S. Patent No. 10,364,563 (Application No. 15/863,882), covering a runoff water management system, filed in the Massachusetts District Court under Case No. 1:20-cv-10433.
The case was dismissed with prejudice via joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with no damages, costs, or attorneys’ fees awarded and all appellate rights waived.
The patent remains valid and unlitigated on the merits, meaning it can potentially be asserted against other parties. Companies in this technology space should conduct FTO analysis.
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 Full-Text Database — U.S. Patent No. 10,364,563
- PACER — Case No. 1:20-cv-10433, Massachusetts District Court
- Massachusetts District Court IP Litigation Docket
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.