MacNeil IP v. Yita: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed After 510 Days
MacNeil IP, LLC brought an appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging a patentability ruling concerning US9138917B1, a patent covering the design and manufacture of vehicle floor trays, against Yita, LLC and Jinrong Automotive. The parties jointly agreed to dismiss the proceeding under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs — leaving the underlying merits unresolved by the appellate court.
A Federal Circuit patent appeal resolved by agreement, not adjudication
MacNeil IP, LLC, holder of US9138917B1 covering vehicle floor tray design and manufacturing, pursued an appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-2188) against Yita, LLC and Jinrong (SH) Automotive Accessory Industrial Development Co. Ltd. The appeal was filed on 8 August 2024 and centred on a patentability dispute — specifically an invalidity or cancellation action targeting the vehicle floor tray patent.
The proceeding closed on 31 December 2025 when both parties agreed to dismiss the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), a procedural mechanism that allows parties to exit an appeal by stipulation without a ruling on the merits. The order specifies that each side shall bear its own costs. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement was reached or what terms, if any, were agreed between the parties outside the court order.
At 510 days, the case ran for a substantial period before the parties elected voluntary dismissal — a timeline consistent with appellate briefing cycles and potential settlement negotiations. Because no merits decision was issued, the validity of US9138917B1 remains formally unresolved at the Federal Circuit level, and the underlying patentability challenge was not adjudicated. What drove the mutual agreement to dismiss — whether commercial settlement, licensing arrangement, or strategic repositioning — is not discernible from the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 510 days
510 days from filing to voluntary dismissal — longer than median Federal Circuit appeal resolution
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) exit means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): dismissal by agreement, no merits ruling
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows parties to dismiss an appeal by filing a signed agreement. The Federal Circuit issued no ruling on patentability, validity, or claim construction. This means the appellate court made no determination on whether the lower decision was correct — the legal questions raised in the appeal remain formally open at this level.
Procedural exit — no adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
The termination basis is recorded as ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without specifying whether it is with or without prejudice. Under appellate procedure, a Rule 42(b) dismissal does not automatically carry a with-prejudice designation. The order itself does not clarify re-filing rights. Practitioners should not assume either preclusive effect or an open right to refile without reviewing any underlying settlement agreement, which is not part of the public record.
Prejudice status unknownPatent validity unresolved; enforcement posture preserved — for now
Because no merits ruling was issued, US9138917B1 was not formally invalidated or cancelled by the Federal Circuit. MacNeil IP retains the patent in its current state. However, any underlying cancellation or invalidity proceeding that generated this appeal may have its own independent status. The absence of a merits ruling is neither a vindication nor a defeat for the patent holder’s validity position.
Patent status: unresolved by appealChallenge ends without appellate victory or defeat for the challenger
Yita and Jinrong did not secure an appellate ruling cancelling or invalidating the patent. However, they also avoided an adverse ruling affirming it. The cost-neutral dismissal suggests neither side extracted a clearly superior outcome through litigation. Future product development or sales in the vehicle floor tray space may still carry infringement risk unless a broader agreement — not visible in the public record — was reached.
No appellate win for challengerFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | MacNeil IP, LLC | Company | Vehicle floor tray IP licensor — holder of US9138917B1 covering floor tray design and manufacturingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Yita, LLC | Company | Yita, LLC and Jinrong Automotive — vehicle accessory makers named in the patentability appealSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | JINRONG (SH) AUTOMOTIVE ACCESSORY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan R. Spivey | Attorney | Counsel for MacNeil IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Polsinelli PC | Law Firm | Representing MacNeil IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark P. Walters. | Attorney | Counsel for Yita, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lowe Graham & Jones PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Yita, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order’s phrasing — ‘The parties having so agreed’ — confirms this was a fully consensual exit, not a unilateral withdrawal. Issued under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), the dismissal carries no appellate merits finding on patentability or claim validity. The cost-bearing clause (each side bears own costs) is standard for agreed dismissals and does not imply fault or weakness on either side. The absence of any remand instruction means the Federal Circuit’s docket is closed on this proceeding, though the status of the originating tribunal’s record is unaddressed in the order.
US9138917B1 — Vehicle Floor Tray Design and Manufacturing
US9138917B1 (application number US14/716401) is a US utility patent granted to MacNeil IP, LLC covering the design and manufacturing of vehicle floor trays. These products — typically custom-moulded to fit specific vehicle models — represent a high-value segment of the automotive accessories market. The patent’s B1 designation indicates it was granted without a published pre-grant application, suggesting a relatively compact prosecution history. The application number prefix (14/7xxxxx) places the filing in the 2014–2015 timeframe under the AIA regime.
Vehicle floor tray patents occupy a commercially sensitive space: the aftermarket automotive accessories market is large, highly competitive, and increasingly served by lower-cost manufacturers. MacNeil IP’s willingness to pursue a Federal Circuit appeal — and the involvement of a Chinese automotive accessory manufacturer as co-defendant — suggests this patent is considered strategically significant for protecting market position against OEM-equivalent aftermarket competition. Any company manufacturing or distributing moulded vehicle floor liners in the US market should assess exposure against the claims of this patent.
Should your product team run an FTO check against US9138917B1?
If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or distributes custom-fit vehicle floor trays or moulded floor liners in the United States, US9138917B1 is a patent you cannot afford to overlook. MacNeil IP has demonstrated willingness to assert this patent at the Federal Circuit level against both a US distributor and a foreign manufacturer. The patent’s validity was not adjudicated in this appeal — meaning it carries full presumption of validity and remains enforceable.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map claim coverage against US9138917B1 quickly, identify design-around opportunities, and monitor for continuation or related applications in the MacNeil IP portfolio. Given the cross-border enforcement dynamic evidenced in this case, an FTO check is advisable before any new vehicle floor tray product launch targeting the US market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9138917B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in vehicle accessories and automotive IP
Cases involving patentability challenges to automotive accessory patents at the Federal Circuit — particularly vehicle floor tray and interior component disputes.
What this case signals for the vehicle accessories IP landscape
A Federal Circuit dismissal without merits leaves patent validity in limbo — and competitor risk unresolved for the vehicle floor tray sector.
Voluntary Federal Circuit dismissals often signal commercial resolution
When both parties agree to exit a patent appeal at the Federal Circuit under Rule 42(b), it typically suggests the dispute has been resolved commercially — through licensing, cross-licensing, or market exit — rather than through litigation. The cost-neutral order reinforces this reading: neither side was in a position of clear leverage at the time of dismissal.
US9138917B1 remains a live enforcement risk for vehicle floor tray competitors
Because the Federal Circuit issued no invalidity ruling, US9138917B1 retains its presumption of validity. Companies designing or selling vehicle floor trays — particularly those with moulded, custom-fit configurations — should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and conduct FTO analysis before launching competing products.
MacNeil v Yita — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal was voluntarily dismissed by agreement of both parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 31 December 2025. No merits ruling was issued on the patentability of US9138917B1. Each side bore its own costs. The case had been pending for 510 days since filing on 8 August 2024.
Yes — because no merits ruling was issued, US9138917B1 retains its statutory presumption of validity. The Federal Circuit did not affirm or reverse any invalidity finding. The patent’s enforceability status depends on any underlying PTAB or district court proceedings that generated this appeal, the status of which is not resolved by this dismissal order.
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) allows appellate parties to dismiss a pending appeal by stipulation or agreement. It results in no ruling on the merits — the appellate court issues no opinion on patentability, claim validity, or any other substantive issue. It is procedurally distinct from a dismissal on the merits and does not establish legal precedent.
Jinrong (SH) Automotive Accessory Industrial Development Co. Ltd. was named as a co-defendant alongside Yita, LLC. The combination of a US-based distributor and a Chinese manufacturer as co-defendants is consistent with enforcement strategies targeting both the source manufacturer and the domestic importer/seller of allegedly infringing automotive accessories.
US9138917B1 covers design and manufacturing methods for vehicle floor trays — a high-volume automotive accessories segment. MacNeil IP’s pursuit of Federal Circuit-level litigation against both a US distributor and a Chinese manufacturer suggests this patent is used to defend significant market share against aftermarket competition. The patent’s continued validity makes it a material risk for competitors in the moulded floor liner space.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.