Plenums of Florida v. VIB-ISO: HVAC Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 25 Days
Plenums of Florida, Inc. asserted US9027901B2 — covering rooftop HVAC air distribution and mounting accessories — against VIB-ISO, LLC in Florida’s Middle District. The case resolved in just 25 days via voluntary dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, suggesting a rapid out-of-court agreement.
A 25-Day HVAC Patent Dispute That Never Reached Discovery
On 21 February 2025, Plenums of Florida, Inc. filed suit against VIB-ISO, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, asserting infringement of US9027901B2. The patent covers rooftop-mounted HVAC system air distribution accessories, mounting accessories such as curbs, and ventilation and energy efficiency accessories — a niche but commercially significant segment of the commercial HVAC components market.
The case closed just 25 days later, on 18 March 2025, through a voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal expressly provides that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs ‘in accordance with the agreement between the parties’ — language that typically signals a private settlement or licensing arrangement reached before litigation costs escalated.
The speed of resolution — 25 days from filing to dismissal — suggests the parties either had pre-existing settlement discussions or reached an agreement immediately after service of process. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, Plenums of Florida cannot re-assert the same claims against VIB-ISO on the same patent. The specific commercial terms of any underlying agreement remain undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 25 days
25 days — well below the median district court patent case duration of 2+ years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice explained
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Filing it ‘with prejudice’ goes beyond the rule’s default — it is a deliberate election that extinguishes the plaintiff’s right to re-file the same claims against this defendant. The explicit ‘with prejudice’ designation, combined with a mutual cost-bearing clause, is a classic hallmark of a negotiated resolution.
Plaintiff-initiated, no merits rulingWith prejudice: the plaintiff’s claims are permanently closed against VIB-ISO
A dismissal with prejudice carries full res judicata effect — Plenums of Florida cannot re-file the same US9027901B2 infringement claims against VIB-ISO in any court. The public record confirms the ‘with prejudice’ designation explicitly. This contrasts with a dismissal without prejudice, which would preserve the right to refile. The underlying commercial terms — such as a licence, royalty, or covenant not to sue — are not disclosed in the court record.
Claim permanently extinguishedVIB-ISO exits with no adverse judgment and no public cost award
VIB-ISO, LLC avoided any court finding of infringement, invalidity, or damages. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means no attorneys’ fees were shifted under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or Rule 54(d). From a reputational and commercial standpoint, VIB-ISO faces no public adverse ruling. However, any private agreement reached with Plenums of Florida — such as a design-around obligation or licence fee — would not appear in the public record.
No adverse judgment on meritsSpeed and silence: what a 25-day resolution signals to the HVAC IP market
Resolution in 25 days — before any substantive court filing by the defendant — is consistent with a pre-litigation commercial agreement rapidly formalised after the complaint was filed. For competitors in the rooftop HVAC accessories space, this case signals that US9027901B2 is being actively enforced. Other market participants making or distributing air distribution curbs or ventilation accessories should treat this patent as litigation-ready IP and consider freedom-to-operate analysis.
Active enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Plenums of Florida, Inc. | Company | Commercial HVAC accessories manufacturer — holder of US9027901B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | VIB-ISO, LLC | Company | VIB-ISO, LLC — manufacturer or distributor of HVAC-related products, FloridaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cole Carlson | Attorney | Counsel for Plenums of Florida, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Carlson IP Law, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Plenums of Florida, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice expressly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and designates the dismissal ‘with prejudice’ — a plaintiff-elected elevation above the rule’s default without-prejudice outcome. The phrase ‘in accordance with the agreement between the parties’ confirms that the cost-bearing arrangement is contractual, not merely procedural. No court finding on infringement, validity, or damages was made; the patent US9027901B2 remains in force. The with-prejudice designation bars any future re-filing of the same claims against VIB-ISO.
US9027901B2 — Rooftop HVAC Air Distribution and Mounting Accessories
US9027901B2, filed under application number US13/648378, protects inventions in the domain of rooftop-mounted HVAC air distribution accessories — including mounting curbs and ventilation and energy efficiency accessories. This is a specialised segment of commercial HVAC infrastructure, where the mechanical interface between rooftop HVAC units and building air distribution systems is engineered for performance and compliance. The patent’s B2 designation indicates it was granted with an examined and published set of claims.
For the commercial HVAC components sector, US9027901B2 represents a potentially significant design chokepoint: mounting curbs and plenum accessories are standardised components purchased by contractors and building owners, meaning that even modest claim scope could cover a wide range of competing products. Plenums of Florida’s decision to litigate suggests commercial confidence in the enforceability of this patent. Competitors and distributors of functionally similar accessories face non-trivial infringement exposure without a formal claim analysis.
Should your team run an FTO search against US9027901B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing rooftop HVAC mounting curbs, air distribution plenums, or ventilation energy efficiency accessories for the North American commercial building market should assess exposure to US9027901B2. This case demonstrates the patent is actively enforced. Product teams developing new curb adapters, plenum boxes, or rooftop HVAC interface components should commission a claim-by-claim FTO analysis before market launch or product line expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product specifications against the independent and dependent claims of US9027901B2, surface relevant prior art, identify design-around options, and benchmark comparable litigation outcomes in the commercial HVAC sector. Start with a targeted search on US9027901B2 to generate a claim landscape and assess where your design sits relative to the patent’s scope.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9027901B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar HVAC Patent Infringement Cases in U.S. District Courts
Cases involving HVAC accessory patents litigated in U.S. district courts — including voluntary dismissals and early settlements in commercial building equipment disputes.
What this case signals for the rooftop HVAC accessories IP landscape
A 25-day resolution with prejudice in a commercial HVAC patent suit is rare — and commercially informative for the sector.
US9027901B2 is litigation-ready: Plenums is willing to enforce fast
Filing and achieving a with-prejudice resolution in 25 days demonstrates that Plenums of Florida has counsel, a litigation budget, and a clear enforcement strategy. Competitors selling rooftop HVAC curbs, air distribution accessories, or ventilation products in the same market should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk — not a dormant asset.
The mutual cost clause suggests a deal, not a walk-away
When both parties agree to bear their own costs and the dismissal is with prejudice, the most commercially rational interpretation is that a private agreement was reached — often a licence, a product modification commitment, or a covenant not to compete. VIB-ISO’s rapid capitulation (if that is what occurred) may reflect a weak non-infringement position or a preference for confidential resolution over prolonged litigation exposure.
Plenums v VIB-ISO — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on 18 March 2025, 25 days after filing. The dismissal was filed by Plenums of Florida under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs per an agreement between the parties. No court ruling on infringement or validity was issued.
The asserted patent is US9027901B2 (application number US13/648378), covering rooftop-mounted HVAC system air distribution accessories, mounting accessories including curbs, and ventilation and energy efficiency accessories. The patent remains in force following the dismissal.
A dismissal with prejudice carries res judicata effect — Plenums of Florida cannot re-file the same US9027901B2 infringement claims against VIB-ISO in any court. The underlying commercial terms of any agreement (e.g., a licence or covenant) are not disclosed in the public record.
The exact reason is not stated in the public record. However, the combination of a with-prejudice dismissal, a mutual cost-bearing clause, and a reference to ‘the agreement between the parties’ strongly suggests the parties reached a private commercial resolution — such as a licence or settlement — shortly after the complaint was served, before any substantive court filings by the defendant.
No. The dismissal was procedural and voluntary — no court made any finding on the validity, invalidity, or enforceability of US9027901B2. The patent remains in force and can be asserted against other parties. The case is best interpreted as an enforcement signal rather than a merits resolution.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.