Magnecomp Corp. v. Winegard Co. — Consent Judgment After 876 Days
Magnecomp Corp. brought a patent infringement action against Winegard Co. in the Indiana Northern District Court, asserting two patents covering combination external vehicle antenna housing and installation methods. The case resolved by consent judgment on January 19, 2023, after nearly two and a half years of litigation.
Antenna patent infringement resolved by agreed consent judgment
Magnecomp Corp. filed this patent infringement action against Winegard Co. on August 26, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The suit asserted two patents — US10622709B2 and US10944159B2 — both directed to combination external vehicle antenna housing and installation methods. Winegard Co., a manufacturer known for antenna and signal reception products, was the sole defendant.
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order, entered on January 6, 2023, states that the parties filed a joint Stipulation to Dismiss (DE 72), agreeing to dismiss all claims with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with the court directing the Clerk to close the case effective January 19, 2023. The specific terms underlying the consent judgment are not disclosed in the available public record.
The case ran for 876 days before resolution — a timeline consistent with patent matters that proceed through substantive pretrial activity before the parties reach agreement. What drove the parties to resolve at this stage, and whether any licensing arrangement or other commercial terms were agreed, is not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 876 days
876 days from filing to consent judgment — longer than the median district court patent case closure
US10622709B2 & US10944159B2 — External Vehicle Antenna Housing
Any organisation designing or commercialising external vehicle antenna housings — including automotive OEMs, fleet vehicle suppliers, RV accessory manufacturers, and aftermarket antenna brands — should assess freedom to operate against both Magnecomp patents. This case confirms that Magnecomp is an active enforcer willing to pursue litigation through to a court-entered judgment. The undisclosed terms of the consent judgment mean the enforcement landscape cannot be inferred from the outcome alone.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order reflects a jointly stipulated resolution under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), entered as a consent judgment. The dismissal with prejudice means neither party may relitigate these specific claims in this action. The order does not disclose any underlying commercial or licensing terms, and no findings of infringement, validity, or damages were made on the merits.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
What a consent judgment means in patent litigation
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered judgment reflecting terms agreed by the parties. Unlike a voluntary dismissal alone, a consent judgment carries the full authority of a court order and is enforceable as such. Here, the court entered judgment pursuant to a joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), closing the case with prejudice. The specific agreed terms are not disclosed in the available public record.
Court-entered, binding and finalMagnecomp secures a court-entered judgment
For Magnecomp Corp., the consent judgment represents a formally concluded enforcement action. The dismissal with prejudice means Winegard cannot face the same claims on the same patents being relitigated in this court. Whether Magnecomp obtained any commercial consideration as part of the resolution is not disclosed in the available public record. Both asserted patents remain active IP assets.
Claims dismissed with prejudiceWinegard achieves finality — on undisclosed terms
For Winegard Co., the consent judgment ends the litigation with prejudice, providing finality against re-assertion of these specific claims in this action. A dismissal with prejudice typically bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims, though Magnecomp's broader patent portfolio remains a potential enforcement consideration. The specific terms Winegard agreed to are not disclosed in the available public record.
Finality against re-assertionVehicle antenna IP enforcement remains a live commercial risk
The consent judgment signals that Magnecomp Corp. is an active enforcer of its vehicle antenna housing patent portfolio. Both asserted patents — US10622709B2 and US10944159B2 — survive the litigation as enforceable IP assets. Competitors and suppliers operating in the external vehicle antenna housing space should treat these patents as active enforcement risks and consider conducting freedom-to-operate analysis.
Active enforcement risk in antenna housingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Magnecomp Corp. | Company | Antenna technology IP holder — asserting US10622709B2 and US10944159B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Winegard Co | Company | Winegard Co. — antenna and signal reception product manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marc Lorelli, PHV | Attorney | Counsel for Magnecomp Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Brooks Kushman PC | Law Firm | Representing Magnecomp Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alice J. Springer | Attorney | Counsel for Winegard CoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeff M. Barron | Attorney | Counsel for Winegard CoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua J. Mcintyre Phv | Attorney | Counsel for Winegard CoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas M. Everett | Attorney | Counsel for Winegard CoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Barnes & Thornburg, LLP (Elk/In) | Law Firm | Representing Winegard CoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Barnes & Thornburg, LLP (Ind/In) | Law Firm | Representing Winegard CoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Barnes & Thornburg LLP (SB/IN) | Law Firm | Representing Winegard CoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lane & Waterman, LLP (Dav/IA) | Law Firm | Representing Winegard CoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Indiana Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the vehicle antenna housing patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Magnecomp and Winegard's positions in the external vehicle antenna housing technology domain.
Magnecomp's vehicle antenna filing activity and family scope
Magnecomp enforced two patents from what appears to be a continuing family (App. 15/943054 and 16/847373). Mapping Magnecomp's full US and international patent portfolio in the vehicle antenna housing domain may reveal additional granted patents, pending continuations, or divisionals that represent further enforcement or licensing risk for manufacturers in this space.
Continuation family riskFiling trends in external vehicle antenna housing integration
The combination antenna housing and installation method space is seeing increasing complexity as vehicles integrate multiple RF bands (cellular, GPS, satellite radio, V2X). Patent filing activity in multi-band external vehicle antenna enclosures and mounting systems is a useful leading indicator of where proprietary design constraints are forming across the OEM and aftermarket supply chains.
Multi-band antenna housing trendsWinegard's patent position in antenna and reception technology
Winegard Co. is a specialist antenna and signal reception manufacturer. Analysing Winegard's own patent portfolio in external antenna housings, mounting systems, and reception optimisation can reveal whether the company has defensive IP, active development programmes, or white spaces in its portfolio relative to Magnecomp's asserted claims.
Winegard defensive IPAdjacent innovation opportunities near vehicle antenna housing claims
Magnecomp's asserted patents focus on combination housing and installation method integration. Adjacent white-space areas — including aerodynamic low-profile antenna enclosures, EV-specific antenna integration, and smart antenna housing with embedded signal processing — may represent lower-density patent landscapes where R&D investment carries differentiated IP value.
EV and low-profile antenna white spaceSimilar vehicle antenna and RF housing patent cases in US district courts
Cases involving external vehicle antenna housing patents and RF enclosure infringement actions filed in US district courts, including Indiana Northern District.
What this case signals for the vehicle antenna IP landscape
Magnecomp's enforcement action and consent judgment outcome carry clear signals for antenna housing manufacturers and IP teams tracking this space.
Magnecomp's patents survived enforcement — FTO is non-optional for antenna makers
US10622709B2 and US10944159B2 emerged from this litigation as enforceable assets. Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing combination external vehicle antenna housings should conduct a formal FTO analysis against both patents before product launch or supply chain expansion.
Consent judgments without disclosed terms are a monitoring challenge
Because the underlying terms are not public, competitors cannot determine whether a licensing framework, design-around obligation, or market restriction was agreed. This uncertainty suggests monitoring Magnecomp's future enforcement activity and any continuation or continuation-in-part patent filings from the same patent families.
Magnecomp v Winegard — key questions answered
The case resolved by consent judgment. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order, dated January 6, 2023, reflects a joint stipulation to dismiss all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with the case formally closed on January 19, 2023. The specific terms of the consent judgment are not disclosed in the available public record.
Magnecomp Corp. asserted two patents: US10622709B2 (Application No. 15/943054) and US10944159B2 (Application No. 16/847373). Both patents cover combination external vehicle antenna housing and installation methods. The overlapping application numbers are consistent with a continuing patent family.
The case lasted 876 days, from the filing date of August 26, 2020 to the closure date of January 19, 2023. This duration is consistent with patent infringement matters that proceed through substantive pretrial activity before the parties reach a final resolution.
The consent judgment ends the litigation with prejudice, meaning the same claims cannot be relitigated in this action. For Winegard, it provides finality on these specific claims. For other manufacturers in the vehicle antenna housing space, it signals that Magnecomp's patents are active enforcement assets. The underlying commercial terms are not disclosed in the public record.
Yes. This case confirms Magnecomp Corp. is an active enforcer of US10622709B2 and US10944159B2. Companies designing or selling combination external vehicle antenna housings — including OEMs, fleet suppliers, and aftermarket brands — should conduct FTO analysis against both patents and map the full patent family to identify any pending continuations or related filings that could extend claim coverage.
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.