Kinze Manufacturing v. J&M Manufacturing: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed in 33 Days
Kinze Manufacturing, Inc. filed Appeal No. 25-1720 at the Federal Circuit against J&M Manufacturing Co., Inc. over US9113598B2, a patent covering grain cart technology embodied in the Kinze 1421 Grain Cart. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed on unopposed motion under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) just 33 days after filing, with each side bearing its own costs.
A 33-Day Federal Circuit Appeal: Kinze’s Strategic Withdrawal Over Grain Cart IP
Kinze Manufacturing, Inc., an Iowa-based agricultural equipment manufacturer and holder of US9113598B2, filed Appeal No. 25-1720 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 1, 2025, asserting a patent infringement action against J&M Manufacturing Co., Inc. The patent at issue, US9113598B2, relates to grain cart technology as embodied in the Kinze 1421 Grain Cart, placing this dispute squarely within the competitive agricultural equipment sector where grain handling and cart design innovations carry significant commercial weight.
The appeal was terminated on June 3, 2025 — just 33 days after filing — when the Federal Circuit granted Kinze’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). The court also ordered that each side bear its own costs as to Appeal No. 25-1720. Notably, the order references a revised official caption for a related Appeal No. 2025-1654, suggesting this dismissal may be one thread in a broader, multi-appeal dispute between these parties.
The speed of resolution — 33 days — is consistent with either a pre-briefing settlement, a strategic consolidation of appellate proceedings, or a unilateral decision by Kinze to narrow its appellate front. Because the motion was unopposed and the basis is voluntary dismissal without specifying prejudice terms on the face of the public record, the precise legal finality of this specific appeal as to future re-filing remains ambiguous. The existence of related Appeal No. 2025-1654 suggests the underlying dispute between Kinze and J&M Manufacturing may not be fully resolved.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 33 days
33 days — among the shortest Federal Circuit appeal lifecycles, suggesting early resolution or strategic withdrawal before briefing
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Federal Circuit’s order means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): Voluntary Dismissal at the Federal Circuit
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows an appellant to dismiss its own appeal on motion, typically without court permission if unopposed. Here, Kinze’s motion was unopposed, meaning J&M Manufacturing did not contest the withdrawal. This is a procedural termination — the Federal Circuit made no ruling on the merits of the underlying patent infringement claims or the validity of US9113598B2.
Procedural — no merits rulingWith or Without Prejudice? The Public Record Is Silent
A voluntary dismissal ‘with prejudice’ bars the dismissed party from re-filing the same claim; ‘without prejudice’ preserves that right. The Federal Circuit’s order in this case does not explicitly specify either. Under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), dismissals of appeals are not automatically with or without prejudice as to the underlying district court action, making the practical finality of this specific appeal dismissal uncertain from the public record alone.
Prejudice terms unspecifiedKinze Withdraws This Appeal — But a Related Appeal Remains Live
Kinze’s decision to voluntarily dismiss Appeal No. 25-1720 does not necessarily signal an abandonment of its broader IP enforcement strategy. The Federal Circuit’s order explicitly references a revised caption for Appeal No. 2025-1654, which is a strong indicator that related proceedings involving these same parties or patents remain active. Kinze may have consolidated its appellate strategy around the surviving appeal.
Related appeal 2025-1654 activeGrain Cart IP Enforcement: Dispute May Continue in Related Proceedings
For competitors and OEMs operating in the agricultural grain cart space, the dismissal of this single appeal does not resolve the underlying IP risk presented by US9113598B2. The patent remains in force and the related Federal Circuit appeal suggests ongoing enforcement activity. Companies designing or selling grain carts with features potentially covered by the ‘598 patent should monitor Appeal No. 2025-1654 and conduct FTO analysis against US9113598B2.
Monitor Appeal 2025-1654Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kinze Manufacturing, Inc. | Company | Agricultural equipment manufacturer — holder of US9113598B2 (Kinze 1421 Grain Cart)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | J&M MANUFACTURING CO., INC. | Company | J&M Manufacturing Co., Inc. — agricultural equipment manufacturer, grain cart competitorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Kennedy | Attorney | Counsel for Kinze Manufacturing, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McKee, Voorhees & Sease PLC | Law Firm | Representing Kinze Manufacturing, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shawn Daniel Blackburn | Attorney | Counsel for J&M MANUFACTURING CO., INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Susman Godfrey | Law Firm | Representing J&M MANUFACTURING CO., INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order is strictly procedural: it grants Kinze’s unopposed Rule 42(b) motion and dismisses Appeal No. 25-1720 without any assessment of the merits of the infringement claims or the validity of US9113598B2. The order’s simultaneous revision of the official caption for Appeal No. 2025-1654 suggests a deliberate appellate restructuring. The cost-neutrality provision — each side bears its own costs — is consistent with a negotiated or strategic withdrawal rather than a contested ruling, though the public record does not confirm any settlement.
US9113598B2 — Kinze 1421 Grain Cart Agricultural Technology
US9113598B2 (application no. US13/506009) is the patent at the centre of this Federal Circuit dispute. It covers technology related to grain cart design and operation, as embodied in Kinze Manufacturing’s 1421 Grain Cart — a product used in commercial-scale agricultural harvesting operations to receive, store, and transfer grain from combine harvesters. Grain cart technology involves mechanical design choices around auger systems, weight distribution, capacity, and unloading speed that are commercially differentiating in the ag equipment market.
Kinze Manufacturing is one of the leading innovators in the grain cart segment, and US9113598B2 represents a competitive moat the company has sought to enforce against J&M Manufacturing, a direct rival in the same product category. The ongoing nature of the dispute — evidenced by the companion Appeal No. 2025-1654 still active at the Federal Circuit — signals that the ‘598 patent is treated as a commercially significant asset. For agricultural equipment OEMs, this patent represents a meaningful FTO consideration in grain cart product development.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9113598B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or selling grain carts — particularly high-capacity models with features comparable to the Kinze 1421 — should treat US9113598B2 as a live enforcement risk. The patent is actively being litigated at the Federal Circuit, and the dismissal of Appeal No. 25-1720 does not extinguish the underlying claims. Agricultural equipment suppliers entering or expanding in the grain cart segment should conduct FTO analysis before product launch or new model release.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map the claim scope of US9113598B2 against proposed product designs, surface related Kinze and J&M patent portfolios, and flag prosecution history estoppel risks from application US13/506009. Monitoring Appeal No. 2025-1654 through Eureka’s litigation tracking tools will provide early signal on any claim construction rulings that could expand or narrow the ‘598 patent’s enforcement reach.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9113598B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit Patent Appeals in Agricultural Equipment
Explore Federal Circuit patent infringement appeals in agricultural machinery and grain handling equipment with comparable voluntary dismissal or enforcement patterns.
What this case signals for the agricultural equipment IP landscape
A rapid voluntary dismissal with a live related appeal suggests a deliberate appellate strategy — not a concession — in grain cart patent enforcement.
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice terms leaves re-filing risk open
Because the public record does not specify whether this dismissal was with or without prejudice, parties in the agricultural equipment sector should not assume the infringement claims under US9113598B2 are fully extinguished. Monitoring Appeal No. 2025-1654 is essential for understanding the real scope of ongoing risk.
Each-side-bears-own-costs order is consistent with early settlement or consolidation
When Federal Circuit appeals are voluntarily dismissed with no cost award, it typically signals either a negotiated resolution or a strategic procedural move — not a capitulation. The 33-day lifecycle and J&M’s non-opposition strengthen that reading. Practitioners should watch for licensing disclosures or further docket activity in the companion appeal.
Kinze v J&M — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit dismissed Appeal No. 25-1720 on June 3, 2025, just 33 days after filing, after granting Kinze Manufacturing’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). The court ordered each side to bear its own costs. No merits ruling was issued on the infringement claims related to US9113598B2.
The patent at issue is US9113598B2 (application number US13/506009), which covers grain cart technology as embodied in the Kinze 1421 Grain Cart. This patent was the basis for the underlying infringement action that generated the Federal Circuit appeal.
Not necessarily. The Federal Circuit’s order references a revised caption for a related Appeal No. 2025-1654, suggesting the broader dispute between Kinze and J&M Manufacturing continues. The dismissal of 25-1720 is a procedural termination of one appeal only; the public record does not confirm a settlement or full resolution of the underlying infringement claims.
The Federal Circuit’s order does not specify whether the dismissal of Appeal No. 25-1720 was with or without prejudice. Under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), voluntary dismissal of an appeal does not automatically resolve the underlying district court action or bar future proceedings. The prejudice status is ambiguous from the public record.
The Federal Circuit ordered that each side bear its own costs as to Appeal No. 25-1720. This means neither party recovers appellate costs from the other in connection with this specific dismissed appeal. Such a cost-neutral outcome is consistent with a negotiated or strategic withdrawal rather than a contested ruling, though no settlement has been confirmed in the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.