Pilot, Inc. v. Federal Circuit — Appeal Dismissed After 493 Days (Case 23-1399)
Pilot, Inc. pursued a Federal Circuit appeal in an invalidity/cancellation action centred on US10046653B2, covering automobile charger technology. The parties jointly agreed to dismiss the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side absorbing its own costs — leaving no merits ruling on the patent’s validity.
Pilot, Inc.’s Federal Circuit appeal ends without a merits ruling
On 17 January 2023, Pilot, Inc. — represented by Sheridan Ross PC — filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 23-1399) in connection with a patentability dispute involving US10046653B2, an automobile charger patent filed under application number US15/355409. The underlying action was characterised as an invalidity/cancellation proceeding, suggesting the patent’s validity had been challenged before a lower tribunal prior to the appeal.
The appeal concluded on 24 May 2024 when the parties jointly agreed to dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), a procedural mechanism that permits parties to stipulate to dismissal at the appellate level without a decision on the merits. The court ordered dismissal accordingly, with each side to bear its own costs. Because no substantive ruling was issued, the validity of US10046653B2 was neither confirmed nor finally adjudicated by the Federal Circuit in this proceeding.
The 493-day duration before a consensual dismissal, combined with the absence of any cost-shifting, is consistent with parties reaching a private resolution — whether a settlement, licence, or business agreement — after briefing had commenced. The public record is silent on any underlying terms. What remains open is the enforceability and current status of US10046653B2 in any related or future proceedings, as the Federal Circuit’s dismissal without prejudice to the merits leaves the patent’s validity unresolved as a matter of public record.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 493 days
493 days from filing to dismissal — Federal Circuit appeals typically resolve in 12–18 months
Appeal dismissed by agreement: what Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): a procedural exit, not a merits verdict
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows parties to jointly stipulate to dismissal of an appeal at any time before a decision is rendered. The Federal Circuit issues no opinion on patentability, validity, or any substantive question. The lower tribunal’s decision — whatever it was — is neither affirmed nor reversed. The patent’s validity status as determined below remains the operative legal position unless separately challenged.
No merits adjudicationValidity of US10046653B2 remains unresolved at appellate level
Because the Federal Circuit issued no ruling, Pilot, Inc. neither secured an appellate vindication of US10046653B2 nor suffered a formal invalidity finding at this level. The patent’s enforceability depends entirely on the outcome of the underlying proceeding. If the lower tribunal had cancelled or invalidated claims, that decision stands unchallenged by this dismissal. The mutual cost-bearing order suggests neither party extracted a clear concession from the other.
Unresolved patent validityNo appellate loss on the record — but no final win either
The opposing party avoided a potentially adverse Federal Circuit ruling, but equally received no appellate confirmation of any invalidity finding. A Rule 42(b) dismissal is procedurally neutral: it does not estop either party from future proceedings on the same patent claims in different forums, absent any underlying settlement agreement. The symmetric cost order is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than one party capitulating.
Procedurally neutral exitAutomobile charger IP landscape: uncertainty persists post-dismissal
For competitors and product teams operating in the automotive charging space, the dismissal without a merits ruling means US10046653B2 remains a live IP risk. There is no Federal Circuit opinion that narrows, invalidates, or clarifies the patent’s claims. Any company designing around or relying on this patent’s invalidity for FTO purposes should treat the appellate dismissal as legally inconclusive and conduct independent claim analysis.
Live FTO risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pilot, Inc. | Company | Automobile charger technology company — holder of US10046653B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Defendant | Individual | Defendant information not publicly available in this Federal Circuit appeal recordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Briana Diane Long | Attorney | Counsel for Pilot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason H. Vick | Attorney | Counsel for Pilot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert R. Brunelli | Attorney | Counsel for Pilot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sheridan Ross PC | Law Firm | Representing Pilot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order’s language — ‘the parties, having so agreed’ — confirms this dismissal was consensual and bilateral, not unilateral. Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) requires agreement of the parties or a court order; here, party agreement is explicit. Critically, the Federal Circuit issued no opinion on the merits of the patentability dispute. The cost-neutrality clause (‘each side to bear their own costs’) is standard in agreed dismissals and does not indicate fault or concession by either party. The underlying invalidity/cancellation record from the lower tribunal remains the operative legal baseline for US10046653B2.
US10046653B2 — Automobile charger technology patent
US10046653B2, filed under application number US15/355409, protects technology in the automobile charger space. While the specific claim scope is not detailed in the litigation record, automobile charger patents in this era typically cover hardware configurations, connector interfaces, power delivery circuitry, or vehicle integration methods. The patent was asserted in an invalidity/cancellation context, suggesting a third party challenged whether the claimed invention met patentability requirements — most likely novelty or non-obviousness over prior art.
Automobile charging technology has become a strategically significant IP domain as both EV adoption and broader in-vehicle charging accessories have expanded. A patent covering charger architecture or interface standards can carry substantial licensing leverage across the automotive accessories supply chain. The fact that this patent survived to a Federal Circuit appeal — and was neither cancelled by final judgment nor invalidated on the merits — means it retains commercial relevance. Competitors in automotive charging hardware should treat US10046653B2 as an active enforcement risk and conduct independent FTO analysis.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10046653B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing automobile charger products — including EV chargers, in-vehicle USB or wireless charging accessories, or related power delivery hardware — should assess exposure to US10046653B2. The Federal Circuit appeal’s dismissal without a merits ruling means no court has publicly invalidated this patent’s claims. Product teams launching charger products or updating existing designs should not assume the patent is no longer enforceable.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map US10046653B2’s claim language against their product architecture, identify relevant prior art that was or was not raised in the cancellation proceeding, and flag design-around opportunities. Eureka also tracks the patent’s prosecution history and any related family members that may carry overlapping claim scope — giving your team a complete picture before commercial launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10046653B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in automobile charging and EV technology IP
Federal Circuit patentability appeals involving automobile charger and automotive power delivery technology — cases most relevant to US10046653B2 and the Pilot, Inc. dispute.
What this case signals for the automotive charger IP landscape
A Federal Circuit appeal dismissed by agreement, with no merits ruling, creates specific strategic risks for anyone operating near US10046653B2.
Rule 42(b) dismissals leave patent validity in legal limbo
When a Federal Circuit appeal ends under Rule 42(b), no appellate precedent is created and no validity determination is made at that level. For third parties, this means any invalidity arguments raised below remain untested on appeal — and the patent cannot be treated as judicially invalidated based on this proceeding alone.
Symmetric cost orders typically signal a negotiated resolution
Federal Circuit dismissals with each party bearing its own costs are strongly consistent with a private settlement or licensing arrangement reached during the appeal. While the public record confirms no terms, this pattern suggests the underlying dispute may have been commercially resolved — which could affect the patent’s future enforcement posture.
Pilot v Defendant — key questions answered
A Rule 42(b) dismissal means the Federal Circuit issued no ruling on the merits of the patentability dispute. The validity of US10046653B2 was not adjudicated at the appellate level. The patent’s legal status depends entirely on the outcome of the underlying lower-tribunal proceeding, which the dismissal neither affirms nor reverses.
Case 23-1399 was dismissed on 24 May 2024 by agreement of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). No merits opinion was issued. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The case involved an invalidity/cancellation challenge to US10046653B2, an automobile charger patent.
The dismissal of the Federal Circuit appeal does not itself extinguish Pilot, Inc.’s enforcement rights. Because no invalidity ruling was entered at the appellate level, and absent a final cancellation from the lower tribunal, US10046653B2 may still be asserted. Any future enforcement action would depend on the patent’s current prosecution status and whether lower-tribunal proceedings resulted in claim cancellation.
US10046653B2 covers automobile charger technology, filed under application US15/355409. It was the subject of an invalidity/cancellation action — suggesting a party challenged its patentability, likely on prior art or obviousness grounds. The Federal Circuit appeal arose from that underlying proceeding, but was dismissed before any appellate ruling on the patent’s validity.
The public record does not disclose the reasons for the agreed dismissal. However, the combination of a bilateral Rule 42(b) dismissal and a symmetric cost-bearing order is consistent with a private resolution — such as a settlement, licence agreement, or commercial arrangement — reached between the parties during the appellate process. No terms are publicly available.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.