Polyloom v. Consan & Bellinturf: Artificial Grass Fiber Patent War Ends at 898 Days
Polyloom Corporation of America, operating as TC Thiolon USA, sued Consan USA and Chinese manufacturer Qingdao Bellinturf over two artificial grass fiber patents covering sports field technology. After nearly two and a half years before Judge Boulee in the Northern District of Georgia, all claims were dismissed with prejudice — each party bearing its own costs.
A cross-border artificial turf IP dispute ends with bilateral finality
Polyloom Corporation of America, trading as TC Thiolon USA, filed suit on 3 July 2023 in the Northern District of Georgia against Consan USA Inc. and Qingdao Bellinturf Industrial Co., Ltd., a Chinese manufacturer. The infringement action centred on two US patents — US8530026B2 and US9469921B2 — covering artificial grass fiber technology used in sports field surfaces. The case was assigned to Judge J. P. Boulee.
The case closed on 17 December 2025 via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dismissal with prejudice is the most final form of voluntary resolution: Polyloom cannot re-file these claims against Bellinturf or Consan, and neither party can revive the dispute. Critically, the stipulation also includes a mutual no-costs provision, meaning neither side was awarded attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses — a structurally neutral financial outcome.
The 898-day duration suggests the parties engaged in substantial discovery or motion practice before reaching resolution — far longer than a quick settlement typically demands. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement and bilateral prejudice terms are consistent with a negotiated settlement that dissolved the litigation without admissions or financial transfers appearing in the public record. Whether any licensing arrangement, product modification, or commercial agreement accompanied the stipulation is not disclosed in court filings.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 898 days
898 days — well above the median district court patent case resolution time of ~700 days
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice is terminal
A joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires consent of all parties who have appeared and is self-executing upon filing — no court order is needed. The ‘with prejudice’ designation extinguishes the underlying claims permanently. Polyloom cannot reassert US8530026B2 or US9469921B2 against these defendants on the same facts, and the defendants cannot counterclaim on any dismissed counterclaims either.
Permanent bar on re-filingPolyloom surrenders its right to pursue these defendants again
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Polyloom forfeits the ability to bring these specific infringement claims against Consan and Bellinturf in future. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties — only this litigation ends. The no-costs term suggests Polyloom did not extract a damages award or fee-shifting victory, though any private licensing deal would not appear in the public record.
Patents survive; claims against these defendants do notConsan and Bellinturf secure permanent peace from this plaintiff
For Qingdao Bellinturf and its US distributor Consan, dismissal with prejudice provides the strongest available litigation closure short of a full judgment in their favour. They cannot be sued by Polyloom again on these patents for the same accused products. Each party bearing its own costs also means Bellinturf and Consan bear their own substantial legal fees from a 898-day dispute — there was no fee-shifting in defendants’ favour.
Immune from re-suit by Polyloom on these patentsArtificial turf IP remains contested; third parties face ongoing exposure
The resolution of this case does not diminish Polyloom’s patent portfolio. US8530026B2 and US9469921B2 remain active assets that can be asserted against other artificial grass fiber manufacturers or distributors. Competitors in the synthetic turf space — particularly those sourcing fiber from Chinese manufacturers — should treat this case as a signal that Polyloom actively enforces its IP, even if this particular dispute ultimately resolved without a court ruling on the merits.
Polyloom patents remain enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Polyloom Corporation of America | Company | Artificial grass fiber manufacturer — holder of US8530026B2 and US9469921B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Consan USA, Inc. | Company | Consan USA Inc. (US distributor) and Qingdao Bellinturf Industrial Co., Ltd. (Chinese manufacturer) — accused of infringing artificial grass fiber patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Qingdao Bellinturf Industrial Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Samuel Leah | Attorney | Counsel for Polyloom Corporation of AmericaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joshua H. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Polyloom Corporation of AmericaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven D. Moore | Attorney | Counsel for Polyloom Corporation of AmericaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP | Law Firm | Representing Polyloom Corporation of AmericaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP (ATL) | Law Firm | Representing Polyloom Corporation of AmericaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chaoxuan Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Consan USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Elizabeth Danielle T. Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Consan USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. Carole Thompson Hord | Attorney | Counsel for Consan USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rex Mann | Attorney | Counsel for Consan USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard Quarles | Attorney | Counsel for Consan USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Schreeder Wheeler & Flint, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Consan USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston Strawn LLP | Law Firm | Representing Consan USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston & Strawn, LLP-C. NC | Law Firm | Representing Consan USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge J. P. Boulee | Judge | Georgia Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s phrasing — ‘jointly stipulate to dismissal of all claims made against the other Party in this case, with prejudice’ — is deliberately bilateral and comprehensive. ‘All claims’ extinguishes both Polyloom’s infringement counts and any counterclaims Bellinturf and Consan may have filed. The explicit mutual cost-bearing clause is notable: it rules out any fee-shifting motion outcome and suggests neither party achieved sufficient leverage to demand reimbursement, which is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a capitulation by either side.
US8530026B2 & US9469921B2 — Artificial Grass Fiber for Sports Surfaces
US8530026B2 (application no. 13/402063) and US9469921B2 (application no. 13/144334) both protect artificial grass fiber technology targeted at sports field applications. These patents are directed to the physical and material properties of synthetic turf filaments — including fiber cross-section geometry, polymer composition, and performance characteristics relevant to professional and recreational sports surfaces. Their distinct application numbers and grant dates suggest they protect complementary but differentiated aspects of Polyloom’s fiber engineering portfolio.
In the competitive synthetic turf market, fiber design patents carry significant commercial weight: the performance of a sports field surface is directly tied to the fiber’s durability, feel, and resilience, making proprietary fiber profiles a key differentiator. Polyloom’s decision to assert both patents simultaneously suggests they were constructed to provide layered claim coverage, making design-around more difficult for competitors. For manufacturers or distributors sourcing artificial grass fiber from Asia — particularly China — these patents represent ongoing enforcement risk.
Should your R&D team run an FTO against US8530026B2 and US9469921B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing artificial grass fiber for sports field applications in the United States should assess freedom-to-operate against both US8530026B2 and US9469921B2. This is particularly relevant for Chinese fiber manufacturers with US distribution channels — the structure of this case shows Polyloom is prepared to name both the foreign manufacturer and the US distributor as co-defendants. The patents’ claims likely cover fiber cross-section geometry, material composition, or structural performance characteristics that are difficult to detect from product specification sheets alone.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US8530026B2 and US9469921B2 against your specific fiber product parameters, flagging literal infringement risks and identifying potential design-around opportunities. Eureka’s citation graph also surfaces related family members, continuation risk, and any post-grant proceedings filed against these patents — giving your legal and product teams a complete picture before committing to market entry or a new product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8530026B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar artificial grass & synthetic turf patent infringement cases
Cases involving artificial grass fiber patents litigated in US district courts — comparable enforcement actions, Chinese manufacturer defendants, and sports surface IP disputes.
What this case signals for the artificial turf IP landscape
This 898-day dispute between a US turf fiber patent holder and a Chinese manufacturer reveals enforcement dynamics that matter for the entire synthetic sports surface industry.
Cross-border enforcement against Chinese manufacturers is viable but costly
Polyloom’s willingness to name Qingdao Bellinturf directly — alongside its US distributor — demonstrates that patent holders in the artificial turf sector are prepared to pursue Chinese manufacturers in US courts. The 898-day timeline and mutual cost-bearing outcome suggest significant litigation investment with no publicly disclosed financial recovery, a pattern consistent with strategic deterrence rather than pure damages pursuit.
Naming the US distributor alongside the foreign manufacturer is standard practice
Including Consan USA as co-defendant alongside Qingdao Bellinturf provides plaintiffs a US-domiciled defendant with readily attachable assets and easier service of process. Distributors in the artificial turf supply chain should monitor upstream manufacturer IP exposure carefully — being a US entity does not insulate a company from joint liability in infringement actions.
Polyloom v Consan — key questions answered
Polyloom Corporation of America (d/b/a TC Thiolon USA) sued Consan USA Inc. and Qingdao Bellinturf Industrial Co., Ltd. in the Northern District of Georgia for infringement of artificial grass fiber patents US8530026B2 and US9469921B2. After 898 days, the case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs. No court ruling on the merits was issued.
Dismissal with prejudice means Polyloom cannot re-file these specific infringement claims against Consan USA or Qingdao Bellinturf based on the same facts. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable. Polyloom retains the right to assert US8530026B2 and US9469921B2 against any other party — only litigation against these named defendants is permanently barred.
The 898-day duration — substantially longer than a quick settlement — suggests the parties engaged in significant procedural activity before resolution. This is consistent with contested claim construction proceedings, extensive discovery, or parallel post-grant review strategy. The public record does not disclose the specific events that extended the timeline, but cases of this length typically involve at least one substantive dispute over patent claim scope or validity.
US8530026B2 covers artificial fiber for use in artificial grass sports fields, and US9469921B2 covers an artificial grass fibre and artificial lawn comprising such a fibre. Both patents relate to the structural and material properties of synthetic turf filaments used in sports surface applications. The specific claim scope — including fiber geometry, polymer composition, and performance parameters — requires full claim analysis against any accused product.
The joint stipulation explicitly states that each party shall bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. This mutual cost-bearing provision means no fee-shifting occurred in either direction. For a case lasting nearly 900 days with two defendant entities and multiple law firms on each side, both parties likely incurred substantial legal costs with no reimbursement. The provision is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a capitulation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.