KBEnt LLC v. FIRST Co.: Dismissal in HVAC Evaporator Coil Patent Dispute

Introduction

A patent infringement action targeting HVAC evaporator coil protection technology has concluded with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice — a resolution that tells its own strategic story. Filed on May 1, 2024, in the Northern District of Texas, KBEnt LLC v. FIRST Co. (Case No. 3:24-cv-01061) centered on U.S. Patent No. US10976066B2, a patent covering low-temperature protection systems for evaporator coils. The case closed on January 30, 2025, after just 274 days — a notably swift resolution in HVAC patent infringement litigation.

The dispute pitted patent assertion entity KBEnt LLC against FIRST Co., whose Eco Series product line — marketed under the COOL PAK, FRESH PAK, and AQUA PAK brand names — stood accused of incorporating the patented thermal protection mechanism without authorization. The joint stipulation to dismiss with prejudice, agreed upon by both parties through counsel, forecloses any future re-litigation of these specific claims. For patent litigators, IP counsel, and R&D teams operating in the HVAC and climate control sector, the case offers meaningful lessons in litigation risk assessment, claim positioning, and pre-trial settlement calculus.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This case involved U.S. Patent No. US10976066B2, covering low-temperature protection systems for evaporator coils:

• • US10976066B2 — A system and method to de-energize an HVAC unit when a temperature sensor mounted to the evaporator coil detects conditions that could produce ice buildup.

The Accused Products

FIRST Co.’s Eco Series — sold as COOL PAK, FRESH PAK, and AQUA PAK — was alleged to incorporate evaporator coil low-temperature protection by de-energizing the unit upon detection of a low-temperature threshold at the coil sensor.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff KBEnt LLC was represented by attorneys Cheryl T. Burgess, Christopher T. Bovenkamp, Martin C. Robson, and Steven Chase Callahan of **Charhon, Callahan, Robson & Garza PLLC** and **Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP**.

Defendant FIRST Co. was represented by John R. Emerson of **Haynes & Boone, LLP**.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case was filed in the Northern District of Texas, a jurisdiction with an established patent litigation docket. Chief Judge Karen Gren Scholer presided over the matter.

The 274-day duration from filing to closure is notably brief by federal patent litigation standards, suggesting the parties reached a negotiated resolution well before claim construction or summary judgment proceedings. No trial, Markman hearing, or summary judgment ruling appears in the case record. The stipulated dismissal with prejudice was the terminal event, bypassing the full litigation lifecycle.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case concluded via stipulated dismissal with prejudice — meaning both parties agreed to terminate the action and KBEnt LLC is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against FIRST Co. based on the same accused products and patent. No damages award was disclosed, and no injunctive relief was granted or denied by court order. Specific financial terms of any underlying settlement agreement were not made part of the public record.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The formal verdict cause is classified as an Infringement Action, with no invalidity counterclaim, inter partes review (IPR) petition, or claim construction order referenced in the available case data. The absence of these adversarial milestones prior to dismissal is analytically significant.

A dismissal with prejudice arrived at by stipulation typically reflects either a plaintiff receiving consideration sufficient to justify relinquishing its claim, or the plaintiff independently assessing that continued litigation posed risks (claim validity exposure, adverse claim construction, or costs) that outweighed projected recovery. Without a Markman ruling, the court never publicly interpreted the key claim language, meaning the patent’s enforceability against other HVAC manufacturers remains untested by any judicial claim construction.

Legal Significance

The stipulated dismissal with prejudice creates no precedential claim construction record for US10976066B2. This is a double-edged result: KBEnt LLC avoids an adverse ruling that could have narrowed or invalidated its patent, but FIRST Co. and similarly situated HVAC manufacturers gain no judicial clarity on the patent’s enforceable scope.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The HVAC sector relies heavily on evaporator coil protection mechanisms as baseline engineering features. US10976066B2’s coverage of sensor-triggered de-energization places a functional safety standard squarely within an assertable IP right — a dynamic that HVAC manufacturers should monitor closely.

The swift resolution of this case without a public damages award or injunction preserves ambiguity around KBEnt LLC’s enforcement posture. Companies manufacturing competing packaged HVAC units with similar freeze-protection logic — particularly those using coil-mounted temperature sensors tied to unit shutdown logic — remain potentially within the patent’s theoretical assertion scope.

From a licensing perspective, the case’s quiet resolution may reflect an emerging pattern in HVAC patent monetization: assert against commercially visible product lines, apply pre-Markman settlement pressure, and resolve before judicial scrutiny crystallizes. IP professionals advising HVAC manufacturers should document design-around analysis and monitor US10976066B2 for continuation filings or related family patents.