Lowe & Insite Solutions v. Shieldmark: Floor Tape Patent Battle Ends in Defendant Win
Clifford A. Lowe and Insite Solutions, LLC pursued Shieldmark, Crown Equipment Corporation, and Advanced Plastics over ten patents protecting the Mighty Line® floor tape system. After 2,245 days before Judge James S. Gwin in the Ohio Northern District Court, judgment on the merits was entered for the defendants — with plaintiffs’ surety bond of $234,568.26 ordered paid to Shieldmark.
A Six-Year Floor Tape Patent War Concludes in Defendants’ Favour
Filed on April 4, 2019, in the Ohio Northern District Court, this infringement action was brought by Clifford A. Lowe and Insite Solutions, LLC — the entities behind the Mighty Line® floor tape product — against Shieldmark, Inc., Crown Equipment Corporation, and Advanced Plastics, Inc. The plaintiffs asserted a remarkably broad portfolio of ten US patents spanning adhesive floor marking tape compositions, application methods, and related manufacturing processes, signalling a comprehensive effort to protect the Mighty Line® product franchise across multiple dimensions of the underlying technology.
After 2,245 days of litigation, the case concluded on May 27, 2025, with judgment on the merits entered for the defendants. The court’s final orders denied plaintiffs’ motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) — a high bar that requires demonstrating mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or exceptional circumstances — and granted defendants’ motion to collect on a supersedeas bond, directing Colonial Surety Company to pay $234,568.26 to Shieldmark, Inc., with a per-diem accrual of $27.41 from May 19, 2025 through the date of the order, and any excess assessed against plaintiffs personally.
The case’s duration of over six years is notable even by the standards of complex multi-patent district court litigation. The breadth of the patent portfolio asserted — ten patents across multiple application numbers — and the involvement of three defendants with distinct commercial roles suggests the dispute was bitterly contested on validity, infringement, and likely claim construction grounds. The denial of Rule 60(b) relief indicates plaintiffs pursued every available avenue to overturn the outcome before the case finally closed. The public record does not disclose the specific invalidity or non-infringement theories that prevailed at trial or summary judgment.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Defendant in 2245 days
Over 6 years of active litigation — well above median patent case duration in US district courts
Judgment for defendants: what the merits ruling means for both parties
Judgment on the merits — the highest-stakes outcome
A judgment on the merits means the court resolved the substantive patent claims — infringement, validity, or both — in the defendants’ favour, rather than disposing of the case on procedural grounds. This is the most decisive form of district court resolution for a patent plaintiff. Combined with the denial of Rule 60(b) relief, which requires extraordinary circumstances to overturn a final judgment, the outcome is effectively conclusive at the trial level.
Full merits adjudicationTen patents asserted — none produced an infringement finding
For Lowe and Insite Solutions, a defendant-side merits judgment on a ten-patent portfolio is a significant commercial setback. It suggests that across multiple patent claims, the court found either non-infringement or invalidity — or both. The denial of Rule 60(b) forecloses trial-level recourse. Plaintiffs may consider an appeal to the Sixth Circuit, but the evidentiary record now strongly favours defendants. The Mighty Line® patents’ enforceability against these specific defendants is, at minimum, severely curtailed.
Portfolio enforcement curtailedShieldmark recovers bond proceeds; competitive position secured
For Shieldmark, Crown Equipment, and Advanced Plastics, the outcome is commercially valuable: not only is infringement liability extinguished, but Shieldmark is entitled to collect $234,568.26 from the supersedeas bond — plus daily accrual — with any shortfall assessed against plaintiffs personally. The defendants invested in a substantial litigation defence team across four law firms over six years, and the merits judgment validates that investment. Their floor tape products may now operate without the cloud of pending infringement claims.
Bond proceeds + liability clearedFloor tape patent enforcement faces higher scrutiny post-judgment
This outcome suggests that broadly asserting large patent portfolios in a specialised industrial product space — such as adhesive floor marking tape — does not guarantee success, even with ten patents in play. Competitors and new market entrants in the floor marking and industrial safety tape sector can note that Shieldmark’s Mighty Line® competing products survived a comprehensive patent challenge. Future enforcement efforts against similar floor tape products may face estoppel arguments or prior art developed through this litigation record.
Enforcement risk recalibratedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Clifford A. Lowe | Individual | Floor marking tape innovators — holders of the Mighty Line® patent portfolio (10 US patents)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Insite Solutions, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Shieldmark, Inc. | Company | Shieldmark, Crown Equipment, and Advanced Plastics — floor tape manufacturers and distributorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Crown Equipment Corporation | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Advanced Plastics, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Laura J. Gentilcore | Attorney | Counsel for Clifford A. LoweSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ray L. Weber | Attorney | Counsel for Clifford A. LoweSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Renner, Kenner, Greive, Bobak, Taylor & Weber, LPA | Law Firm | Representing Clifford A. LoweSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David J. Sheikh | Attorney | Counsel for Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Howard L. Wernow | Attorney | Counsel for Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James F. McCarthy , III | Attorney | Counsel for Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph A. Sebolt | Attorney | Counsel for Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Laura L. Beoglos | Attorney | Counsel for Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard B. Megley , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lee Sheikh & Haan LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lee Sheikh Megley & Haan LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sand & Sebolt LPA | Law Firm | Representing Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA | Law Firm | Representing Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge James S. Gwin | Judge | Ohio Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s final order addresses the post-judgment phase of the litigation rather than the underlying infringement merits, which were resolved earlier in the case. Granting the motion to collect on the supersedeas bond and denying Rule 60(b) relief are procedurally significant: the bond collection confirms that a prior stay of enforcement has now expired, and the Rule 60(b) denial — requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate mistake, fraud, or exceptional circumstances — indicates the court found no grounds to disturb the underlying merits judgment. For defendants, this order effectively closes all trial-level avenues for the plaintiffs.
US5786028A and 9 further patents — adhesive floor marking tape systems
The asserted portfolio spans ten US patents with application dates ranging from the mid-1990s (US5786028A, filed as US08/708535) through to the mid-2010s (US10738220B2, US10728220B2, filed as US13/731618 and US16/534511 respectively). This generational spread is characteristic of a mature product patent strategy, where an original innovator files continuation and improvement patents to maintain coverage as the technology evolves. The patents collectively cover the composition, structure, adhesive properties, and application methods of industrial adhesive floor marking tape — a product category central to warehouse safety and lean manufacturing floor management.
The Mighty Line® brand occupies a niche but commercially significant segment: durable floor tape used in industrial facilities, warehouses, and distribution centres to demarcate walkways, hazard zones, and workflow paths. The decision by Lowe and Insite Solutions to assert all ten patents simultaneously against Shieldmark, Crown Equipment, and Advanced Plastics signals that the patent estate was viewed as the primary competitive moat. With judgment now entered for defendants, competitors in the industrial floor marking tape market should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against any surviving claims — particularly the later-generation patents with broader claim language — before expanding into directly competing product lines.
Should you run an FTO against the Mighty Line® floor tape patent portfolio?
Any manufacturer, distributor, or industrial procurement team considering competing adhesive floor marking tape products should treat this litigation record as a due-diligence signal. Although judgment was entered for defendants in this specific case, the ten asserted patents — including continuation patents with filing dates extending into the 2010s — remain in the patent registry and may be asserted against different products or different parties. Companies developing bevelled-edge, heavy-duty, or repositionable floor tape products for warehouse and safety applications should specifically examine claim scope across US8088480B2, US10214664B2, and US10738220B2.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map each of the ten asserted patents against your product specifications, identify which claims survived any inter partes review or district court invalidity findings, and flag design-around opportunities based on the prosecution history. Given the litigation’s six-year duration and the volume of claim construction activity likely on record, the prior art landscape for this technology is now substantially richer than it was in 2019 — making a structured FTO analysis both more feasible and more commercially essential for any market entrant.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US5786028A to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar floor marking tape and industrial safety patent cases
Explore related patent infringement actions involving adhesive floor tape, industrial safety marking systems, and multi-patent portfolio enforcement in US district courts.
What this case signals for the industrial floor marking IP landscape
A six-year, ten-patent litigation ending in a full defendant win reshapes enforcement strategy across the adhesive floor tape sector.
Large patent portfolios don’t guarantee enforcement success at trial
Lowe and Insite Solutions deployed ten US patents — an unusually broad portfolio for a single product line. The defendant-side merits judgment suggests that breadth of coverage alone is not sufficient: claim construction, validity challenges, and specific product design-arounds can neutralise even extensive patent estates. IP teams in industrial products should audit claim scope against actual commercial products before committing to multi-patent litigation.
Supersedeas bond mechanics matter: $234K+ shifted to defendants
The collection of a supersedeas bond — typically posted when a party seeks to stay enforcement of a judgment pending appeal — signals that plaintiffs had previously secured a stay, only to ultimately lose. The $27.41 per-diem accrual and personal liability for excess beyond the bond amount illustrate how post-judgment financial exposure can compound significantly over time. In-house counsel should model bond liability scenarios when advising on appeal strategy.
Lowe v Shieldmark — key questions answered
Judgment on the merits was entered for the defendants — Shieldmark, Inc., Crown Equipment Corporation, and Advanced Plastics, Inc. — after 2,245 days of litigation. The court also denied plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motion for relief and granted Shieldmark’s motion to collect $234,568.26 from the supersedeas bond, with a daily accrual of $27.41 from May 19, 2025.
Plaintiffs asserted ten US patents: US5786028A, US8088480B2, US6120395A, US10214664B2, US8343292B1, US6180228B1, US10738220B2, US8883290B2, US5846651A, and US10728220B2. These patents collectively cover adhesive floor marking tape compositions, structures, application methods, and related manufacturing processes associated with the Mighty Line® product line.
A supersedeas bond is typically posted by a losing party to stay enforcement of a monetary judgment while pursuing an appeal. The court’s order directing Colonial Surety Company to pay $234,568.26 to Shieldmark — plus daily accrual — indicates that plaintiffs had previously obtained a stay of enforcement, that stay has now lapsed, and the bond proceeds are being released to satisfy the judgment. Any shortfall beyond the bond is assessed against plaintiffs personally.
Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment on grounds such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other extraordinary circumstances. It is an intentionally high bar. The court’s denial suggests plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any of these qualifying grounds, effectively closing all trial-level avenues to overturn the merits judgment entered in favour of the defendants.
Although defendants prevailed on the merits, the ten asserted Mighty Line® patents remain in the patent registry and could potentially be enforced against different parties or products. Competitors developing adhesive floor marking tape products — particularly for industrial safety and warehouse applications — should conduct FTO analysis against the later-generation continuation patents (e.g., US10214664B2, US10738220B2) whose claim scope may extend beyond the specific products at issue in this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.