Miller Industries v. NRC Industries: Rotating Wrecker Patent Dispute Closes After 1,547 Days
Miller Industries Towing Equipment filed suit against NRC Industries in New Jersey federal court, asserting US9440577B2 covering extendable and retractable rotating wrecker control technology across 16 accused products. After more than four years of litigation, the case closed on June 30, 2025 when NRC’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice and the court denied Miller’s bid for attorney’s fees.
Four-Year Wrecker Technology Battle Ends With Counterclaims Dropped, No Fee Award
Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc., a leading manufacturer of towing and recovery equipment, filed this infringement action in the District of New Jersey on April 5, 2021, asserting US9440577B2 against NRC Industries. The patent covers the extendable and retractable Raptor® rotating wrecker control system — a mechanism central to heavy-duty rotator wrecker products. Sixteen Miller and NRC products were identified as relevant to the dispute, including Miller’s Century and Vulcan wrecker lines and NRC’s CSR 50, 65, and 85 rotating wreckers.
The case resolved on June 30, 2025 at a court hearing on NRC’s motion to dismiss its own remaining counterclaims without prejudice. The court granted that motion over Miller’s opposition, effectively closing out the final contested issues in the case. Critically, the court denied Miller’s concurrent request for attorney’s fees and costs, suggesting the court did not find the case to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or otherwise fee-shifting warranted.
The 1,547-day duration — over four years — is notably extended for a single-patent district court matter, suggesting complex claim construction, discovery, or inter partes proceedings may have shaped the timeline. The without-prejudice dismissal of NRC’s counterclaims leaves open the theoretical possibility of future challenge, while the denial of fees indicates neither side secured a clear-cut litigation victory. The precise scope of any underlying settlement or stipulation on the main infringement claims is not reflected in the public record.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 1547 days
1,547 days in litigation — well above the U.S. district court patent case median of ~700 days
Counterclaims dismissed without prejudice: what the closing order means for both parties
Defendant’s own counterclaims dismissed — not the main infringement claims
The closing order arose from NRC’s motion to dismiss its own remaining counterclaims without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. This is procedurally distinct from a dismissal of Miller’s original infringement claims. NRC chose to withdraw its counter-assertions — likely invalidity or non-infringement counterclaims — rather than litigate them to judgment. The court’s grant of NRC’s own motion is routine, but Miller’s active opposition signals the stakes involved.
Rule 41 voluntary withdrawalWithout prejudice: NRC’s counterclaims can theoretically be re-filed
A dismissal without prejudice means NRC’s counterclaims — likely including patent invalidity challenges — are not decided on the merits and are not res judicata. NRC retains the theoretical right to raise those defenses or claims in future proceedings, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and estoppel doctrines. However, the public record does not disclose whether the parties reached a broader settlement resolving the underlying infringement dispute. That ambiguity is commercially significant.
No merits adjudicationMiller’s fee request denied — no exceptional case finding
Miller Industries opposed NRC’s motion to dismiss and simultaneously sought attorney’s fees and costs. The court’s denial of that fee request is notable: under 35 U.S.C. § 285, fees are awarded only in ‘exceptional’ cases. The denial suggests the court did not view NRC’s litigation conduct or the merits position as sufficiently egregious to justify a fee shift. Miller secured closure of the case but without the financial remedy it sought.
§ 285 fees deniedUS9440577B2 remains enforceable — competitive risk persists for wrecker OEMs
With no invalidity ruling on the merits, US9440577B2 stands unchallenged from this litigation. Competing manufacturers of rotating wrecker systems — particularly those with extendable and retractable control architectures similar to NRC’s CSR series — face ongoing infringement risk from Miller’s patent. The without-prejudice dismissal also means NRC has not waived its invalidity arguments, leaving the patent’s ultimate scope subject to future contest if commercial conflict resurfaces.
Patent validity unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc. | Company | Towing and recovery equipment manufacturer — holder of US9440577B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | NRC Industries | Company | NRC Industries — manufacturer of competing rotating wrecker and towing recovery equipmentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gerhard William Buehning | Attorney | Counsel for Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jessica K. Formichella | Attorney | Counsel for Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Katelyn O’Reilly | Attorney | Counsel for Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Liza M. Walsh | Attorney | Counsel for Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Selena Miriam Ellis | Attorney | Counsel for Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William T. Walsh , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Walsh Pizzi O’Reilly Falanga LLP | Law Firm | Representing Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gene Y. Kang | Attorney | Counsel for NRC IndustriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory D. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for NRC IndustriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Rivkin Radler LLP | Law Firm | Representing NRC IndustriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The closing order is narrow in scope: it addresses only NRC’s counterclaims, not the merits of Miller’s original infringement allegations. The court’s language — granting the motion ‘for the reasons stated on the record’ — indicates an oral ruling without a written opinion, limiting the precedential value of this resolution. The simultaneous denial of attorney’s fees confirms no exceptional-case finding, consistent with a litigated dispute that resolved through party action rather than judicial determination on the merits. The infringement question against NRC’s CSR 50, 65, and 85 wreckers was never publicly adjudicated.
US9440577B2 — Extendable and Retractable Rotating Wrecker Control System
US9440577B2, assigned to Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc., protects the mechanical and control architecture of extendable and retractable rotating wrecker systems — commonly known as rotator wreckers — used in heavy-duty towing and recovery operations. The Raptor® product line embodies this technology. The patent’s claims likely cover the articulation, extension, and retraction mechanisms that allow the boom to rotate and reach disabled vehicles in complex recovery scenarios, a differentiating feature in premium wrecker product lines.
Rotating wrecker technology is a premium segment of the towing equipment market, and US9440577B2 represents a core IP asset for Miller Industries in defending that position. The assertion against 16 NRC products — including three CSR rotator models — demonstrates the patent’s claimed breadth across competing architectures. For wrecker OEMs, tier-1 body manufacturers, and fleet procurement teams, this patent defines a critical design boundary. Any manufacturer developing extendable rotator systems should treat US9440577B2 as a primary freedom-to-operate checkpoint, particularly given Miller’s demonstrated willingness to enforce over multi-year litigation.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9440577B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing rotating wrecker or rotator tow truck systems — particularly those featuring extendable and retractable boom mechanisms — should treat US9440577B2 as a mandatory FTO checkpoint. This case confirms Miller Industries will enforce the patent against direct competitors. NRC’s CSR product line was accused across three models; the breadth of accused products in this case suggests the claims are read expansively by the patent holder. Fleet operators specifying rotator wreckers from non-Miller suppliers should also consider indemnification clauses in supply agreements.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map rotating wrecker design specifications directly against the claim elements of US9440577B2 and related family members. Eureka can surface prior art that NRC may have intended to use in its counterclaims, identify claim limitations that create design-around opportunities, and flag continuation applications in Miller’s portfolio that could extend coverage. Running a structured FTO analysis before finalising boom extension and retraction architectures can materially reduce litigation exposure in this contested technology space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9440577B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Rotating Wrecker and Towing Equipment Patent Cases
Explore related patent infringement actions involving rotating wrecker, towing equipment, and heavy recovery system technology litigated in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the towing equipment IP landscape
A four-year wrecker patent dispute that ended without a merits ruling still carries clear signals for IP strategy in the towing and recovery sector.
No invalidity ruling means US9440577B2 retains full enforcement teeth
Because NRC’s counterclaims — almost certainly including invalidity challenges — were withdrawn without prejudice and not decided on the merits, Miller’s patent exits this litigation with its presumption of validity intact. Competitors in the rotating wrecker space cannot rely on this case as precedent limiting the patent’s scope or validity.
Fee denial signals a contested, balanced litigation — not a clear plaintiff win
Courts reserve § 285 fee awards for truly exceptional cases. The denial here suggests the court viewed NRC’s litigation positions as reasonable, even if NRC ultimately chose to withdraw. For IP strategists, this implies the underlying infringement and invalidity arguments were genuinely contested — neither side’s position was frivolous.
Miller v NRC — key questions answered
The case closed on June 30, 2025 after 1,547 days. The court granted NRC Industries’ motion to dismiss its own remaining counterclaims without prejudice and denied Miller Industries’ request for attorney’s fees and costs. No merits ruling on the underlying patent infringement claims appears in the public record.
Miller Industries asserted US9440577B2, which covers the extendable and retractable Raptor® rotating wrecker control system technology. The patent relates to boom articulation and control mechanisms used in heavy-duty rotator wrecker products, including Miller’s Century and Vulcan product lines.
NRC’s accused products included the NRC CSR 50, CSR 65, and CSR 85 rotating wreckers. Miller’s own products identified in the dispute included multiple Century and Vulcan series wreckers, spanning 16 products in total across both parties’ product lines.
The court denied Miller’s request for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 at the June 30, 2025 hearing. The denial suggests the court did not find the case to be ‘exceptional’ — the legal standard required to shift fees in patent litigation — implying NRC’s litigation positions were viewed as reasonably contested rather than frivolous or bad-faith.
No. The dismissal without prejudice applies to NRC’s counterclaims only and does not constitute a merits ruling on patent validity. US9440577B2 retains its presumption of validity. NRC has not waived its invalidity arguments and could theoretically raise them again in future proceedings, including IPR petitions before the USPTO.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.