Prairie Land Millwright v. Sioux Steel: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Prairie Land Millwright Services and inventor Duane Chaon pursued a Federal Circuit appeal against Sioux Steel Company over grain bin paddle sweep patent US8967937B2. The parties jointly agreed to dismiss the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) — each side bearing its own costs — after 293 days of appellate proceedings.
A Federal Circuit grain bin patent appeal ends by mutual agreement
Prairie Land Millwright Services, Inc. and inventor Duane Chaon filed this appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 17 August 2023, targeting Sioux Steel Company over alleged infringement of US8967937B2 — a patent covering grain bin paddle sweep products including the Single Arm, Twin Arm, Arm-And-A-Half, and Linear configurations used in agricultural grain storage facilities.
The case closed on 5 June 2024 when the parties jointly agreed to dismiss the proceeding under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The Federal Circuit ordered the dismissal as stipulated, with each side bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued, meaning the appeal was terminated without the court adjudicating any substantive question of patent infringement, claim construction, or validity.
At 293 days, the appeal was resolved before reaching full briefing or oral argument, which suggests the parties may have reached a private resolution or strategic accommodation. The public record is silent on whether a settlement agreement, licensing arrangement, or commercial negotiation drove the withdrawal. The cost-neutral order is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a concession by either side.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 293 days
293 days — resolved within a typical Federal Circuit appeal window of 12–24 months
Appeal voluntarily dismissed: what the Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) order means
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): dismissal by party agreement
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows parties to voluntarily dismiss an appeal by filing a signed agreement. The Federal Circuit’s order here reflects exactly that: both parties agreed to end the proceeding, and the court issued a formal dismissal. No substantive merits were decided — no finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope was made. The patent and any prior district court findings remain the operative legal record.
No merits adjudicationThe public record is silent on prejudice terms
A voluntary appellate dismissal under Rule 42(b) does not automatically specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice to re-filing or re-litigating underlying claims. The order here states only that the proceeding is dismissed with each side bearing its own costs. The public docket does not clarify whether the parties agreed to any preclusion terms. Practitioners should not assume either outcome without reviewing any underlying settlement agreement, which would not be publicly filed.
Prejudice terms undisclosedPrairie Land and Chaon withdraw without a ruling
As appellants, Prairie Land Millwright Services and Duane Chaon initiated this Federal Circuit proceeding. Their agreement to dismiss suggests either a strategic reassessment of appellate prospects or a private resolution with Sioux Steel. Without a merits ruling, they receive no Federal Circuit endorsement of their patent’s scope or infringement arguments — but they also avoid the risk of an adverse precedential ruling that could narrow US8967937B2’s enforceability.
No precedential lossSioux Steel avoids Federal Circuit scrutiny of its products
Sioux Steel, as appellee, agreed to the dismissal and will pay no costs. The company avoids any Federal Circuit ruling that could confirm patent infringement liability for its grain bin equipment. However, the absence of a merits ruling also means no invalidity or non-infringement finding was secured — leaving the patent technically intact and the commercial dispute potentially unresolved unless a private agreement was reached.
No invalidity finding securedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Prairie Land Millwright Services, Inc. | Company | Agricultural equipment IP holder — grain bin paddle sweep systems, US8967937B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Duane Chaon | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Sioux Steel Company | Company | Sioux Steel Company — agricultural grain storage and handling equipment manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Holiday W. Banta | Attorney | Counsel for Prairie Land Millwright Services, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas Arthur Rammer , II | Attorney | Counsel for Prairie Land Millwright Services, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ice Miller LLP | Law Firm | Representing Prairie Land Millwright Services, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian McGraw | Attorney | Counsel for Sioux Steel CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Philip Dearmond | Attorney | Counsel for Sioux Steel CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert J. Theuerkauf | Attorney | Counsel for Sioux Steel CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gray Ice Higdon PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Sioux Steel CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order is purely procedural: it records the parties’ mutual agreement and formally terminates the proceeding under Rule 42(b). The cost-neutral disposition — each side bearing its own expenses — is notable in a patent infringement appeal, where fee-shifting arguments often feature prominently. No claim construction, infringement analysis, or validity ruling is embedded in the order, meaning no binding Federal Circuit precedent was established on the scope of US8967937B2.
US8967937B2 — Grain Bin Paddle Sweep System
US8967937B2, filed under application number US13/229406, protects a grain bin paddle sweep system — a mechanised device used to move harvested grain along the floor of a storage bin toward a central collection or auger point. The patent covers multiple product configurations including Single Arm, Twin Arm, Arm-And-A-Half, and Linear sweep designs. This technology is fundamental to commercial grain handling operations, where efficient and complete grain removal from bins reduces spoilage and labour costs.
For the agricultural equipment sector, paddle sweep patents represent a commercially significant battleground: the underlying technology is widely deployed in mid-scale and large commercial grain storage, and design variations directly affect efficiency and operational safety. Prairie Land Millwright Services’ assertion of this patent against Sioux Steel — a major agricultural storage manufacturer — suggests confidence in its claim scope. With no Federal Circuit ruling on validity or infringement, the patent retains its enforcement potential across the grain bin equipment market.
Should you run an FTO against US8967937B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing grain bin paddle sweep equipment — including single-arm, multi-arm, or linear sweep configurations — should assess their exposure to US8967937B2. The Federal Circuit appeal produced no claim construction ruling, leaving the patent’s enforceable scope undefined by appellate authority. R&D teams developing competing sweep mechanisms and procurement teams sourcing OEM components face real and unresolved FTO risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to map claim language from US8967937B2 against product designs, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and monitor Prairie Land Millwright’s broader portfolio for continuation or divisional filings. Running a structured FTO analysis now — before any enforcement action — is significantly less costly than defending a fresh infringement claim.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8967937B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar grain bin and agricultural equipment patent appeals at the Federal Circuit
Explore Federal Circuit appeals and district court cases involving agricultural grain handling equipment patents, voluntary dismissals, and Rule 42(b) terminations.
What this case signals for the agricultural equipment IP landscape
Voluntary Federal Circuit dismissals in agricultural equipment patent cases often mask private deal-making — and carry forward-looking risk for the sector.
Absence of a merits ruling keeps US8967937B2 fully enforceable
Because the Federal Circuit issued no ruling on infringement or validity, US8967937B2 retains its full legal presumption of validity. Any competitor manufacturing grain bin paddle sweep systems — including Single Arm, Twin Arm, or similar configurations — should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk. The dismissal resolves this dispute but creates no safe harbour for third parties.
Cost-neutral dismissal is consistent with a negotiated resolution
Fee-shifting in patent cases typically signals one party’s leverage; a cost-neutral order suggests parity or a deliberate split. The mutual agreement structure and equal cost allocation are consistent with a commercial settlement or licensing deal reached during the appellate window. Companies in adjacent agricultural storage technology markets should monitor for licensing activity tied to this patent.
Prairie v Sioux — key questions answered
The voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) terminated the Federal Circuit appeal without any merits ruling. US8967937B2 remains valid and enforceable. No finding was made on infringement or invalidity, so the patent’s legal status is unchanged by this dismissal.
The Federal Circuit’s order does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. The public record is silent on this point. Any preclusion terms would be governed by a private settlement agreement, which would not appear in the public docket.
The case involved Prairie Land Millwright’s grain bin paddle sweep products, specifically identified as the Single Arm, Twin Arm, Arm-And-A-Half, and Linear sweep configurations used in agricultural grain storage bins. Sioux Steel was alleged to infringe through competing products in this category.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the voluntary dismissal. The cost-neutral terms — each side bearing its own costs — and the agreed nature of the dismissal are consistent with a private settlement or licensing arrangement, but no such agreement has been publicly filed.
No. A voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) produces no substantive ruling and creates no precedent. The Federal Circuit did not address claim construction, infringement, or validity of US8967937B2. Third parties cannot rely on this dismissal as authority for any legal position regarding the patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.