Precision Planting v. Kabat American: Consent Judgment & Permanent Injunction in 238 Days
Precision Planting, LLC filed suit against Kabat American, Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois asserting 9 patents across four technology families covering agricultural planter seed meters, hydraulic cylinders, singulation brushes, and pressure control systems. The case resolved in under eight months via a stipulated consent judgment that permanently enjoins Kabat American from selling the accused products for the life of the key patents.
Nine Patents, One Injunction: Precision Planting Locks Out a Parts Competitor
Precision Planting, LLC, a Delaware LLC headquartered in Trenton, Illinois, filed this patent infringement action on March 24, 2025 against Kabat American, Inc., an Illinois corporation based in Saint Charles, Illinois, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. The complaint asserted nine patents across four distinct technology families — the Hydraulic Cylinder Patents (US9,144,189; US9,746,007; US9,879,702; US10,359,062), the Seed Meter Patent (US7,631,606), the Singulation Brush Patents (US7,162,963; US7,798,080), and the Pressure Control Patents (US8,550,020; US9,301,438) — targeting Kabat American’s aftermarket replacement parts for precision planting equipment.
The parties reached agreement on October 22, 2025, and the court entered the stipulated consent judgment on November 17, 2025. Under its terms, Kabat American is permanently enjoined from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing the Seed Meter Products (P343022, P343025, P343030), the Hydraulic Cylinder Products (WMCT32X89), and the Solenoid Valve Set Products (P729600) for the life of the Seed Meter and Hydraulic Cylinder Patents. Both parties stipulated that all asserted patents are valid and enforceable, and both waived any right to appeal the judgment.
Resolution in approximately 238 days — without a contested trial or IPR challenge — is notably swift for a nine-patent infringement action, suggesting Kabat American concluded that mounting a full validity or non-infringement defense was commercially untenable given the breadth of the patent portfolio asserted against it. The public record does not disclose any monetary damages or royalty component to the settlement, nor does it reveal whether any licensing arrangement accompanies the injunction. The cost-neutrality provision (each side bearing its own fees) is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a plaintiff victory on the merits.
Filing to Consent Judgment in 238 days
238 days from filing to consent judgment — well under the typical 2–3 year district court patent trial timeline
Stipulated judgment entered: what the permanent injunction means for both parties
Consent judgment: binding on both parties, appeal-proof by design
A consent judgment is a court order entered upon the mutual agreement of the parties — it carries the full force of a judicial ruling but reflects negotiated terms. Critically, both parties here expressly waived all appeal rights, making this outcome final and non-reviewable. The stipulation that all nine asserted patents are ‘valid and enforceable’ creates a binding admission by Kabat American that could have collateral consequences in future proceedings.
Consent & waiver of appealPrecision Planting secures a portfolio-wide injunction without trial
Precision Planting achieved its core enforcement objective — market exclusivity over competing aftermarket parts — in under eight months and without the cost or uncertainty of a jury trial. The permanent injunction covers the life of the Seed Meter and Hydraulic Cylinder Patents, protecting the highest-volume product families. The defendant’s stipulated admission of patent validity strengthens Precision Planting’s position for any future enforcement actions against other aftermarket suppliers.
Permanent injunction securedKabat American exits the enjoined product lines, preserves cost neutrality
Kabat American agreed to stop selling the enjoined products — seed meters, hydraulic cylinders, and solenoid valve sets — for the patent life, effectively exiting those aftermarket segments. Notably, the Air Cylinder Products (ACY2X2) and Singulation Brush Products are not explicitly named in the injunction paragraph, which may suggest those product lines were resolved differently or dropped. Each side bearing its own costs indicates no punitive fee award was extracted against Kabat American.
Market exit on core product linesAftermarket planter parts: IP enforcement risk is now demonstrably real
This outcome signals that Precision Planting is actively enforcing its precision agriculture patent portfolio against aftermarket parts suppliers, not just OEM competitors. The nine-patent, multi-family assault — covering mechanical, hydraulic, and electronic planter functions — creates a high freedom-to-operate burden for any company supplying compatible replacement parts. The stipulated validity finding reinforces the strength of these patents and raises the bar for any future challenge by a different defendant.
High FTO risk for aftermarket suppliersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Precision Planting, LLC | Company | Agricultural precision planting technology company — holder of US7631606B2 and 8 further planter patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Kabat American, Inc. | Company | Aftermarket agricultural equipment parts supplier based in Saint Charles, IllinoisSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Michael Spingola | Attorney | Counsel for Precision Planting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott R. Brown | Attorney | Counsel for Precision Planting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Suhani Mehrotra | Attorney | Counsel for Precision Planting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Todd A. Gangel | Attorney | Counsel for Precision Planting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Chapman Spingola LLP | Law Firm | Representing Precision Planting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hovey Williams LLP | Law Firm | Representing Precision Planting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael P. Mazza | Attorney | Counsel for Kabat American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul Robert Hale | Attorney | Counsel for Kabat American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Michael P. Mazza LLC | Law Firm | Representing Kabat American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Michael P. Mazza, Llc | Law Firm | Representing Kabat American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated judgment is unusually comprehensive in scope: it names specific product numbers, defines four patent family groupings, and contains an express validity stipulation covering all nine asserted patents. The injunction is perpetual in duration — running for the full remaining life of the Seed Meter and Hydraulic Cylinder Patents — which is a stronger remedy than a time-limited or royalty-bearing license. The explicit waiver of appeal rights by both parties confirms this is a final, unappealable resolution. The cost-neutrality provision and the absence of any stated damages figure are consistent with a negotiated outcome in which Precision Planting prioritised market exclusivity over monetary recovery.
US7631606B2 — Precision Planting Seed Meter and Planter Control Patents
The nine asserted patents span mechanical and pneumatic/hydraulic control technologies for precision row-crop planting equipment. The Seed Meter Patent (US7,631,606) and Singulation Brush Patents (US7,162,963; US7,798,080) protect core seed delivery accuracy technologies — controlling individual seed release and singulation at the row unit level. The four Hydraulic Cylinder Patents (US9,144,189; US9,746,007; US9,879,702; US10,359,062) cover hydraulic down-force systems that regulate per-row planting pressure, a critical parameter for stand establishment. The two Pressure Control Patents (US8,550,020; US9,301,438) address pneumatic control systems for row-unit load management.
This portfolio represents a layered IP strategy covering both legacy planting mechanics and later-generation electronic/hydraulic control systems, with application dates ranging across more than a decade. For the precision agriculture sector, where OEM replacement parts pricing is a major farmer cost driver, this portfolio creates a broad exclusivity zone around high-demand aftermarket components. Any company manufacturing or distributing compatible seed meters, hydraulic cylinders, or pressure control hardware for planters compatible with Precision Planting’s platform faces material FTO risk across multiple independent patent families — making design-around or invalidity strategies significantly more costly.
Should you run an FTO against Precision Planting’s planter control patents?
Any manufacturer, distributor, or importer of aftermarket agricultural planter components — including seed meters, hydraulic down-force cylinders, solenoid valve sets, singulation brushes, or pneumatic row-unit control products — should treat this litigation outcome as a direct signal to conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis before entering or continuing in these product categories. The nine-patent portfolio spans mechanical through electronic planter control, and the consent judgment confirms all patents are valid and enforceable as of November 2025.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the nine asserted patents against your specific product specifications, identify claim elements most likely to read on competing designs, and surface prior art or design-around pathways at the claim level. With patent expiry dates spread across multiple years, understanding which families pose the longest-duration risk — and which claims are narrowest — is essential for product planning, supplier qualification, and investment decisions in the precision agriculture parts market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7631606B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar precision agriculture patent infringement cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving precision agriculture planter patent enforcement, aftermarket parts disputes, and hydraulic/seed metering IP litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Hydraulic cylinders (Hydraulic Cylinder #WMCT32X89), solenoid valves and coil sets (Solenoid Valve Set #P729600), seed meters (product numbers P343022, P343025, and P343030), singulation brushes (included with product numbers P343022, P343025, and P343030), and pneumatic cylinders (Air Cylinder #ACY2X2)-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedPrecision Planting, LLC’s broader IP enforcement history
Precision Planting, LLC’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the precision agriculture IP landscape
A nine-patent consent judgment in under eight months reshapes the aftermarket planter parts market and puts IP risk on notice industry-wide.
Multi-family patent portfolios can foreclose entire aftermarket segments
Precision Planting’s strategy of asserting patents across four technology families simultaneously — hydraulics, seed metering, singulation, and pressure control — made piecemeal design-around difficult. Aftermarket suppliers should audit replacement product lines against patent families, not just individual patents, to assess true exposure.
Stipulated patent validity creates enforcement leverage beyond this defendant
Kabat American’s agreement that all nine patents are ‘valid and enforceable’ is now a matter of judicial record. While not technically binding on third parties, it creates persuasive precedent and removes any reputational cover for similar suppliers who might claim the patents are vulnerable to invalidity challenge.
Speed of resolution suggests early settlement leverage — know your exposure window
A defendant facing nine patents across four families with no prior IPR petition history faces an asymmetric cost-benefit. The 238-day resolution suggests Kabat American assessed litigation costs against potential sales revenue and settled quickly. Companies in similar positions benefit from pre-suit FTO analysis and a clear picture of which patent claims are most and least defensible before receiving a complaint.
Air Cylinder and Singulation Brush Products may signal a partial licensing track
The injunction text explicitly covers Seed Meter and Hydraulic Cylinder Products but does not enumerate the Air Cylinder (ACY2X2) or Singulation Brush Products in the injunction paragraph, despite those being among the accused products. This gap in the public record is consistent with a side license, royalty arrangement, or agreed discontinuation — a detail that matters to competitors mapping Precision Planting’s enforcement boundaries.
Precision v Kabat — key questions answered
The case was resolved by a consent judgment entered November 17, 2025 by Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. in the Northern District of Illinois. Kabat American is permanently enjoined from selling the accused seed meter, hydraulic cylinder, and solenoid valve products, and both parties stipulated that all nine asserted patents are valid and enforceable. Each party bears its own attorney fees and costs.
Precision Planting asserted nine patents grouped into four families: the Hydraulic Cylinder Patents (US9,144,189; US9,746,007; US9,879,702; US10,359,062), the Seed Meter Patent (US7,631,606), the Singulation Brush Patents (US7,162,963; US7,798,080), and the Pressure Control Patents (US8,550,020; US9,301,438). These cover seed metering, singulation brush mechanisms, hydraulic down-force systems, and pneumatic pressure control for agricultural row planters.
The accused products were: Seed Meter Products (P343022, P343025, P343030), Hydraulic Cylinder Products (WMCT32X89), Solenoid Valve Set Products (P729600), Singulation Brush Products (included with P343022, P343025, P343030), and Air Cylinder Products (ACY2X2). These are aftermarket replacement parts for precision agricultural planters.
The consent judgment is directly binding only on Kabat American. However, Kabat American’s stipulation that all nine patents are ‘valid and enforceable’ is a matter of public judicial record and may be cited as persuasive evidence in future litigation against other defendants. It removes a key litigation talking point — patent invalidity — for similarly situated aftermarket parts suppliers who may face enforcement by Precision Planting.
The case resolved in approximately 238 days from filing (March 24, 2025) to the consent judgment (November 17, 2025). This is notably swift for a nine-patent infringement action. The speed of resolution — without any IPR petition, Markman hearing, or trial — suggests Kabat American assessed the cost and risk of defending against a broad, multi-family patent portfolio and concluded that a negotiated exit from the enjoined product lines was the commercially rational outcome.
Protect your position in the precision agriculture parts market
This consent judgment confirms Precision Planting’s patents are valid, enforceable, and actively litigated. Run an FTO analysis against the nine asserted patents before launching or continuing any compatible aftermarket planter product line.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.