Old Mill Brick v. MS International: BrickStaks Patent Suit Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
Old Mill Brick LLC filed suit against MS International Inc. in December 2023, asserting US11781322B2 covering its BrickStaks thin-brick veneer system. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice in June 2024 — just 179 days after filing — with each side bearing its own legal costs.
BrickStaks patent dispute resolves by mutual stipulation in under six months
Old Mill Brick LLC, a manufacturer associated with decorative thin-brick veneer products, filed Case No. 2:23-cv-00900 in the Utah District Court on 14 December 2023, asserting infringement of US11781322B2 against MS International Inc. The patent, filed under application number US17/805193, covers technology associated with the BrickStaks product line — a system for installing thin-brick veneer panels. Judge Dale A. Kimball was assigned to preside.
The case closed on 10 June 2024 via a joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation, in which both Old Mill Brick and MS International agreed to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. Critically, each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. A with-prejudice dismissal forecloses any refiling of the same claims, giving the resolution a degree of finality that a without-prejudice dismissal would not provide.
The 179-day resolution is notably rapid for patent litigation in the District of Utah, suggesting the parties may have reached a commercial or licensing accommodation outside the public record. The symmetric cost arrangement — neither side recovering fees — is consistent with a negotiated settlement rather than a clear-cut victory for either party. The precise terms of any underlying agreement, if one exists, are not disclosed in the public docket.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 179 days
179 days — resolved well under the typical 2–3 year district court patent trial timeline
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal requires a signed stipulation from all parties who have appeared. Unlike a unilateral voluntary dismissal, both sides must consent. The ‘with prejudice’ designation means the dismissed claims are extinguished permanently — Old Mill Brick cannot re-assert the same infringement claims against MS International based on the same conduct in any future action.
Permanent bar on refilingOld Mill Brick forfeits the right to refile, but controls the exit
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Old Mill Brick relinquishes the ability to reassert these infringement claims against MS International. However, US11781322B2 itself remains in force and enforceable against other parties. The symmetric cost arrangement suggests Old Mill Brick did not achieve a court-ordered remedy, though any private licensing or commercial terms are not reflected in the public record.
Patent survives; claims extinguishedMS International exits with no adverse judgment — but with prejudice cuts both ways
MS International avoids any finding of infringement or validity ruling against it. The dismissal with prejudice also bars Old Mill Brick from reviving the same suit, providing MS International with permanent closure on these specific claims. MS International’s counterclaims — which could have included invalidity arguments — are also dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot reuse this forum to challenge the patent.
No infringement finding; counterclaims goneUS11781322B2 remains live — risk persists for other thin-brick veneer competitors
The dismissal leaves US11781322B2 fully intact and enforceable. For other manufacturers in the thin-brick veneer and architectural panel space, the patent continues to represent a potential enforcement risk. The speed of resolution and mutual cost-bearing terms are consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution, which may include a license — but the public record does not confirm this. Competitors should treat the patent as active and enforceable.
Patent enforceable against third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Old Mill Brick | Individual | Thin-brick veneer product manufacturer — holder of US11781322B2 (BrickStaks)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | MS International | Individual | MS International Inc. — flooring and surface materials supplier named as infringerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher D. Wade | Attorney | Counsel for Old Mill BrickSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elliot James Hales | Attorney | Counsel for Old Mill BrickSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark A. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for Old Mill BrickSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michele M. Myer | Attorney | Counsel for Old Mill BrickSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dorsey & Whitney, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Old Mill BrickSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cameron Anish Kishor Patel | Attorney | Counsel for MS InternationalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ronald P. Oines | Attorney | Counsel for MS InternationalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sarah Van Buiten | Attorney | Counsel for MS InternationalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sterling Arthur Brennan | Attorney | Counsel for MS InternationalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Maschoff Brennan | Law Firm | Representing MS InternationalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Rutan & Tucker, LLP | Law Firm | Representing MS InternationalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Dale A. Kimball | Judge | Utah District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation language is precise: all claims and all counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice, with costs lying where they fall. The bilateral nature of the dismissal — covering both Old Mill Brick’s infringement claims and MS International’s counterclaims — means no party secured a merits ruling. The with-prejudice designation provides finality on these specific claims but leaves the underlying patent, US11781322B2, legally intact and unimpaired for future enforcement against third parties.
US11781322B2 — BrickStaks thin-brick veneer installation system
US11781322B2, filed under application US17/805193, protects technology associated with Old Mill Brick’s BrickStaks product — a system for installing thin-brick veneer panels in architectural and construction applications. Thin-brick veneer systems are used to replicate the appearance of full-brick construction at reduced weight and cost, with applications across residential and commercial facade work. The patent’s claims are likely directed at the structural or mechanical arrangement by which the panels interlock, stack, or are secured to a substrate.
For competitors in the architectural surface materials sector — including flooring, wall cladding, and facade system manufacturers — US11781322B2 represents a focused IP asset in a commercially active product category. The fact that MS International, a major surface materials distributor, was named as defendant underscores the breadth of potential infringement exposure. With no invalidity finding on the record, the patent carries full presumption of validity, raising the competitive risk profile for any product that approximates the BrickStaks installation mechanism.
Should you run an FTO against US11781322B2?
Any manufacturer, distributor, or private-label brand operating in the thin-brick veneer, faux-brick panel, or architectural masonry veneer space should treat US11781322B2 as a priority FTO target. The claims survived litigation without challenge, and the speed of settlement suggests Old Mill Brick is willing to enforce. If your product involves a stacking, interlocking, or panel-based thin-brick installation system, a claim-chart analysis against the issued claims is commercially prudent before market entry or product refresh.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US11781322B2 against your product specifications, identify design-around opportunities, and flag continuation applications filed under US17/805193 that may extend claim scope. Eureka also monitors the Old Mill Brick patent portfolio for new filings in the thin-brick and masonry veneer category, allowing R&D and product teams to track emerging IP risk in real time without manual docket monitoring.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11781322B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: thin-brick veneer and building materials IP in US district courts
Cases involving architectural surface material patents litigated in Utah and neighbouring district courts — comparable infringement posture and product category to Old Mill Brick v. MS International.
What this case signals for the thin-brick veneer and masonry IP landscape
A swift, stipulated exit in Utah suggests commercial pragmatism — but US11781322B2 remains a live enforcement tool for Old Mill Brick.
Speed of resolution signals likely out-of-court commercial arrangement
179-day resolution is atypically fast for patent litigation. Combined with the symmetric cost arrangement and with-prejudice terms, this pattern is consistent with a licensing deal or commercial settlement reached before substantive motion practice. Competitors in the thin-brick veneer space should consider whether a licensing framework may be in place.
With-prejudice dismissal protects MS International — but does not invalidate the patent
MS International’s counterclaims — likely including invalidity arguments — were also dismissed with prejudice. This means no invalidity finding was obtained. US11781322B2 emerges from this litigation unchallenged on the merits, potentially emboldening Old Mill Brick to assert it against other market participants.
Brick v MS — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on 10 June 2024, approximately 179 days after filing. Both parties agreed to dismiss all claims and counterclaims under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No merits ruling was issued.
Old Mill Brick asserted US11781322B2, filed under application number US17/805193. The patent is associated with the BrickStaks product, a thin-brick veneer panel installation system. The patent remains in force following the dismissal.
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently extinguishes the dismissed claims. Old Mill Brick cannot refile the same infringement action against MS International based on the same accused conduct. However, the underlying patent US11781322B2 is unaffected and remains fully enforceable against other parties.
No. MS International’s counterclaims — which may have included invalidity arguments — were also dismissed with prejudice, meaning no invalidity finding was made. US11781322B2 retains its full presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. The patent’s legal status is unchanged by the litigation outcome.
Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, with no fee-shifting. This symmetric arrangement is typically associated with negotiated resolutions rather than court-ordered outcomes. It suggests neither party achieved a dominant litigation position that would justify a fee award, and is broadly consistent with a commercial settlement or licensing arrangement reached outside the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.