Low Temp Industries v. Duke Manufacturing — Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed
Low Temp Industries, Inc. appealed against Duke Manufacturing Co. at the Federal Circuit over US8661970B2, a patent covering multi-well food presentation modules, in a patentability dispute. The parties agreed to dismiss the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) just 139 days after filing, with each side bearing its own costs.
Federal Circuit appeal ends by agreement before any merits ruling
Low Temp Industries, Inc. brought an appeal against Duke Manufacturing Co. at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 22-2199), filed on 13 September 2022. The underlying dispute concerned patentability — specifically an invalidity or cancellation action — relating to US8661970B2, a patent directed to multi-well food presentation modules used in commercial food service settings.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Appeal Dismissed.' The docket order states that the parties having so agreed, the proceedings were dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. The Federal Circuit entered this order on 30 January 2023. No merits determination on the patentability of US8661970B2 was issued at the appellate level.
The 139-day duration from filing to dismissal is notably short for a Federal Circuit appeal, suggesting the parties reached an agreement relatively early in the appellate process. What drove that agreement — and whether any underlying commercial arrangement accompanied it — is not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 139 days
139 days — appeal resolved well under the Federal Circuit's typical multi-year appellate timeline
US8661970B2 — Multi-well food presentation modules
Any company manufacturing, importing, or commercialising multi-well food presentation modules, food holding equipment, or structurally similar food service display hardware should assess its exposure to US8661970B2. The patent survived a Federal Circuit appeal without being cancelled or narrowed, meaning its claim scope remains intact as last adjudicated at the underlying level. R&D and product teams developing next-generation food warming or presentation systems should review independent and dependent claims before finalising designs.
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit's order records a dismissal by agreement under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each party bearing its own costs. The order is purely procedural — the court made no determination on the patentability of US8661970B2 or the merits of the underlying invalidity or cancellation action. The cost-neutral structure of the dismissal does not, on its face, indicate which party's position prevailed in any related proceedings.
Appeal dismissed: what the agreed dismissal means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) dismissal — no merits adjudication
A dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) is a procedural termination of an appeal by agreement of the parties, or on a party's own motion. No appellate court ruling on the underlying patentability dispute is issued. The Federal Circuit's order reflects the parties' joint consent; the court did not examine or decide the validity of US8661970B2.
Procedural — no merits rulingPatentability dispute ends without a validity ruling on US8661970B2
For Low Temp Industries as patent holder, the dismissal means the Federal Circuit did not issue any ruling that would cancel or confirm the validity of US8661970B2. The patent's status as of the dismissal date is governed by whatever the underlying tribunal determined prior to this appeal. The specific terms of any arrangement between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
No appellate validity rulingDuke Manufacturing exits appeal with no adverse merits finding
Duke Manufacturing Co. faces no appellate merits ruling against it as a result of this dismissal. Whether the outcome of the underlying invalidity or cancellation proceeding remains in force, or whether any separate arrangement was reached, is not disclosed in the available record. Each party bears its own costs, so no cost exposure was imposed on Duke at the Federal Circuit level.
No cost award imposedUncertainty on US8661970B2 validity persists in food service equipment sector
Because the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal without ruling on the merits, the patentability questions raised in the underlying invalidity or cancellation action are not authoritatively resolved at the appellate level. Competitors and product teams in the multi-well food presentation module space should monitor the underlying proceeding's status and any further filings related to US8661970B2.
Validity question unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Plaintiff | Individual | Commercial food service equipment company — holder of US8661970B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Defendant | Individual | Duke Manufacturing Co. — commercial food service equipment manufacturer and competitorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in multi-well food presentation equipment IP
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Low Temp Industries v. Duke Manufacturing dispute over multi-well food service module technology.
Low Temp Industries' filing activity in food holding technology
Low Temp Industries' enforcement of US8661970B2 to the Federal Circuit level suggests a deliberate portfolio strategy in commercial food presentation and holding equipment. Mapping their full patent portfolio can reveal adjacent claim coverage, continuation filings, and prosecution history that signal where they are building or defending exclusivity in food service hardware.
Portfolio watchFiling trends in multi-well food presentation module technology
The commercial food service sector has seen continued innovation in modular food display, holding temperature control, and configurable well systems. Tracking filing trends around multi-well food presentation modules — including assignee activity, IPC class F24C and A47F filings — can reveal which competitors are entering or expanding in this space and where claim density is highest.
Landscape trendDuke Manufacturing's patent strategy in food service equipment
Duke Manufacturing is an established player in commercial food service equipment. Analysing their patent prosecution history, publication cadence, and design patent filings in food holding and warming systems can reveal whether they are building a counter-portfolio, pursuing design-arounds to US8661970B2, or investing in adjacent technology categories to reduce dependence on contested configurations.
Competitor watchAdjacent innovation opportunities near US8661970B2's claim scope
The multi-well food presentation space contains potential white space adjacent to US8661970B2's protected configurations — particularly in modular connectivity, temperature-zone differentiation across wells, and smart monitoring integration. Identifying claim gaps in existing patents can guide R&D teams toward protectable, freedom-to-operate-friendly design directions in commercial food service hardware.
White space signalSimilar Federal Circuit patent appeals in food service equipment
Explore comparable Federal Circuit invalidity and cancellation appeals involving commercial food service equipment patents, including multi-well and food holding module disputes.
What this case signals for the food service equipment IP landscape
A fast Federal Circuit dismissal by agreement in a patentability dispute raises questions about the patent's enforceability and the parties' commercial calculus.
Early Federal Circuit dismissals often signal out-of-court resolution activity
A 139-day appeal lifecycle at the Federal Circuit — ending by mutual agreement before briefing concludes — typically suggests the parties reached some resolution. Whether that involves licensing, design-around, or withdrawal of the underlying challenge is not in the public record, but the speed and cost-neutral exit is commercially significant.
US8661970B2 remains a live enforcement risk in multi-well food presentation
With no Federal Circuit merits ruling cancelling or narrowing US8661970B2, the patent retains whatever scope it held entering the appeal. Manufacturers of multi-well food service modules, warming and holding equipment, and similar food presentation hardware should assess their freedom to operate against this patent's claims.
Plaintiff v Defendant — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal in Case No. 22-2199 was dismissed by agreement of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 30 January 2023. No merits ruling on the patentability of US8661970B2 was issued. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs. The underlying dispute concerned an invalidity or cancellation action relating to multi-well food presentation modules.
No. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement of the parties before issuing any ruling on the merits. The patentability of US8661970B2 was not adjudicated at the appellate level. The patent's validity status is governed by whatever the underlying proceeding determined prior to this appeal.
A Rule 42(b) dismissal is a procedural termination of an appeal by agreement; the appellate court issues no decision on the substance of the dispute. For US8661970B2, this means the Federal Circuit made no ruling cancelling, narrowing, or confirming the patent's claims. The patent retains whatever scope and validity it held based on the underlying tribunal's determination.
US8661970B2 covers multi-well food presentation modules — equipment used in commercial food service settings to hold, display, and present food across multiple discrete compartments or wells. The patent is relevant to cafeteria, buffet, institutional, and similar food service environments. Application number US13/654449 was the filing identifier for this patent.
The Federal Circuit's dismissal order expressly states that each side shall bear their own costs. No cost award was made to either Low Temp Industries or Duke Manufacturing as part of the Rule 42(b) dismissal. This cost-neutral outcome is consistent with a mutually agreed termination of the appeal.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.