Northern Divers USA v. Atlantic Subsea & Xylem Dewatering: Pipe Cleaning Patent Dismissed
Northern Divers USA, Inc. filed suit in the District of New Jersey asserting US9687891B2 — covering an intake pipe cleaning system and method — against three defendants including Atlantic Subsea, PSEG Global, and Xylem Dewatering Solutions. The case ran 417 days before closing on a consent order of dismissal with prejudice as to Xylem, with each party bearing its own costs.
Subsea pipe-cleaning patent dispute ends in consent dismissal
Northern Divers USA, Inc., a specialist in underwater and subsea services, filed this patent infringement action on 5 August 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit asserted US9687891B2, a patent covering an intake pipe cleaning system and method, against three defendants: Atlantic Subsea, Inc., PSEG Global USA, Inc., and Xylem Dewatering Solutions, Inc. The complaint alleged that the defendants’ activities infringed the asserted patent in connection with intake pipe cleaning operations.
The case closed on 26 September 2025 — 417 days after filing — through a Joint Stipulation and Consent Order of Dismissal with Prejudice entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), limited to the claims between Northern Divers USA and Xylem Dewatering Solutions. Dismissal with prejudice bars Northern Divers from re-filing the same claims against Xylem in federal court. Critically, each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, suggesting neither side extracted a financial concession sufficient to justify a fee award.
The 417-day duration and dismissal confined to Xylem — with Atlantic Subsea and PSEG Global not named in the consent order — leaves the public record ambiguous as to whether claims against the remaining defendants were separately resolved, transferred, or remain pending. The amicable resolution language in the stipulation is consistent with a confidential commercial settlement, though the specific terms are not disclosed. The absence of fee-shifting is a common hallmark of negotiated exits rather than adjudicated outcomes, suggesting the parties reached a pragmatic business resolution rather than litigating to judgment.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 417 days
417 days — above the median for single-patent NJ District Court infringement actions
Dismissed with prejudice: what the consent order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice explained
A Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice by court order extinguishes the plaintiff’s claims permanently. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, Northern Divers cannot re-file these same patent infringement claims against Xylem in any federal court. The consent order format signals that both parties agreed to the terms, making a collateral challenge to the dismissal unlikely.
Claims permanently extinguishedNorthern Divers exits with no public recovery from Xylem
Dismissal with prejudice forecloses any future enforcement of US9687891B2 against Xylem for the conduct at issue. The ‘amicably resolved’ language suggests a private settlement may underlie the stipulation, but no financial terms or licensing agreement are disclosed in the public record. Northern Divers retains the patent and may still enforce it against other parties, including potentially Atlantic Subsea and PSEG Global.
Patent intact; Xylem claims closedXylem obtains permanent release from Northern Divers’ claims
Xylem Dewatering Solutions secures a with-prejudice dismissal, providing the strongest available protection against re-litigation of these specific claims by Northern Divers. Each party bearing its own costs suggests Xylem did not obtain a fee award, consistent with a negotiated rather than adjudicated resolution. The status of claims against co-defendants Atlantic Subsea and PSEG Global is not addressed in this order.
Xylem protected from re-suitUS9687891B2 enforcement risk persists for the broader sector
The with-prejudice dismissal as to Xylem does not signal patent invalidity or non-infringement — only that these two parties resolved their dispute. Northern Divers retains full enforcement rights against third parties under US9687891B2. Companies operating intake pipe cleaning systems or deploying dewatering solutions in subsea or industrial contexts should assess their exposure to this patent, particularly given the unresolved status of claims against Atlantic Subsea and PSEG Global.
Enforcement risk remains for third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | NORTHERN DIVERS USA, INC. | Company | Subsea and underwater services specialist — holder of US9687891B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ATLANTIC SUBSEA, INC. | Company | Industrial dewatering and subsea services providers operating intake infrastructureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | PSEG GLOBAL USA, INC. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | XYLEM DEWATERING SOLUTIONS, INC. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Firouzeh Nur-Vaccaro | Attorney | Counsel for NORTHERN DIVERS USA, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | STANLEY D. FERENCE , III | Attorney | Counsel for NORTHERN DIVERS USA, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Y. JAE KIM | Attorney | Counsel for NORTHERN DIVERS USA, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | FERENCE & ASSOCIATES, LLC | Law Firm | Representing NORTHERN DIVERS USA, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | KIM IP LAW GROUP LLC | Law Firm | Representing NORTHERN DIVERS USA, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kim IP Law Group, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing NORTHERN DIVERS USA, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | RICHARD P. COE | Attorney | Counsel for ATLANTIC SUBSEA, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | SUSAN WEIR | Attorney | Counsel for ATLANTIC SUBSEA, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | WEIR GREENBLATT PIERCE | Law Firm | Representing ATLANTIC SUBSEA, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | WEIR LLP | Law Firm | Representing ATLANTIC SUBSEA, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The consent order’s ‘amicably resolved’ language, combined with the with-prejudice standard and mutual cost-bearing provision, is the textbook signature of a negotiated commercial resolution rather than an adjudicated outcome. The phrasing extinguishes Northern Divers’ claims against Xylem with finality but reveals nothing about the underlying consideration exchanged. Notably, the order is silent on Atlantic Subsea and PSEG Global, which suggests the three-defendant dispute may have been resolved on different tracks or timelines.
US9687891B2 — Intake Pipe Cleaning System and Method
US9687891B2 was filed under application number US14/656139 and covers a system and method for cleaning intake pipes — infrastructure commonly found in power generation facilities, desalination plants, offshore platforms, and industrial water intake structures. The dual system-and-method claim structure is significant: it provides Northern Divers with the ability to assert infringement against both equipment manufacturers and service contractors performing cleaning operations, broadening the potential defendant pool substantially.
From a competitive intelligence perspective, this patent sits at the intersection of subsea services, dewatering equipment, and industrial water infrastructure maintenance — sectors experiencing increased activity driven by offshore energy development and aging onshore water infrastructure. The fact that Northern Divers pursued three defendants simultaneously, including a large utility-adjacent entity (PSEG Global) and a major dewatering equipment supplier (Xylem), suggests confidence in the patent’s claim scope across multiple business models. Any company active in intake infrastructure cleaning should treat US9687891B2 as a live enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9687891B2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, distributes, or operates intake pipe cleaning systems — whether for power generation, offshore energy, municipal water, or industrial dewatering contexts — US9687891B2 represents a live patent risk. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is willing to pursue multiple defendants simultaneously across different parts of the supply chain, from equipment suppliers to end-use operators. An FTO analysis is advisable before launching any new intake cleaning product or service offering.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map claim scope against proposed product configurations, identify prior art that may affect validity, and surface related patents in Northern Divers’ portfolio that could create additional exposure. With US9687891B2 still active and litigation against two co-defendants unresolved in the public record, the window for proactive clearance work remains open and strategically valuable.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9687891B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: subsea and industrial pipe systems
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving subsea equipment and industrial pipe systems filed in the District of New Jersey and related federal courts.
What this case signals for the subsea and industrial water infrastructure IP landscape
A patent covering intake pipe cleaning systems remains enforceable after this litigation — and the public record leaves questions open on two of three defendants.
With-prejudice dismissal does not invalidate the patent
US9687891B2 survives this litigation fully intact. Northern Divers retains the right to assert it against Atlantic Subsea, PSEG Global, or any other party. Companies providing intake pipe cleaning, dewatering, or subsea infrastructure services should not treat this dismissal as a clearance event for freedom-to-operate purposes.
Unresolved co-defendants signal potential continued enforcement activity
The consent order is expressly limited to claims between Northern Divers and Xylem. Atlantic Subsea and PSEG Global are not parties to the dismissal, leaving their status unaddressed in the public record. This is consistent with ongoing negotiations or separate resolution tracks, and warrants monitoring by parties in the subsea services sector.
NORTHERN v ATLANTIC — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a Joint Stipulation and Consent Order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Northern Divers and Xylem agreed to dismiss all claims between them, with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. The dismissal was entered on 26 September 2025.
Northern Divers USA asserted US9687891B2, filed under application number US14/656139. The patent covers an intake pipe cleaning system and method — technology relevant to power generation, offshore energy, and industrial water infrastructure sectors.
No. A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) only extinguishes the specific claims between Northern Divers and Xylem Dewatering Solutions. It carries no ruling on patent validity or infringement. US9687891B2 remains enforceable against third parties, including potentially Atlantic Subsea and PSEG Global who were named as co-defendants in the original complaint.
The public record is silent on this point. The consent order of dismissal with prejudice is expressly limited to claims between Northern Divers and Xylem Dewatering Solutions. The docket does not contain a corresponding dismissal order covering Atlantic Subsea or PSEG Global, suggesting their claims may have been resolved separately or through a different procedural track.
In U.S. patent litigation, each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs means no fee-shifting award was made under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or Rule 54. This is the default outcome in negotiated resolutions and is consistent with an amicable settlement. It does not indicate whether any monetary consideration was exchanged confidentially between the parties.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.