Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Precision Planting v. Kabat American — Agricultural Planter IP | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:25-cv-03117
FiledMar 2025
ClosedNov 2025
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
238days
238 days from filing to consent judgment — well under the typical 2–3 year district court patent trial timeline
Patents asserted
9
US7631606B2 and 8 further patents asserted across 4 agricultural planter technology families
Outcome
Consent Judgment
Stipulated judgment: patents valid, enforceable; permanent injunction entered; appeal rights waived
Cost ruling
Each Side Bears Own Costs
No fee-shifting; each party responsible for its own attorney fees and costs under the stipulated terms
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:25-cv-03117
CourtIllinois Northern
JudgeJohn J. Tharp, Jr.
FiledMarch 24, 2025
ClosedNovember 17, 2025
Duration238 days
OutcomeConsent Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisConsent Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Illinois Northern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

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

Case timeline: Complaint filed MAR 24 2025, JUL–AUG — 238 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Precision Planting, LLC v Kabat American, Inc. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. MAR 24 2025 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings NOV 17 2025 Consent Judgment 238 DAYS TOTAL
Consent judgment terms

Stipulated judgment entered: what the permanent injunction means for both parties

Legal mechanism

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 appeal
Patent holder outcome

Precision 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 secured
Defendant outcome

Kabat 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 lines
Commercial implications

Aftermarket 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 suppliers
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:25-cv-03117 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffPrecision Planting, LLCCompanyAgricultural precision planting technology company — holder of US7631606B2 and 8 further planter patentsSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantKabat American, Inc.CompanyAftermarket agricultural equipment parts supplier based in Saint Charles, IllinoisSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselPeter Michael SpingolaAttorneyCounsel for Precision Planting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselScott R. BrownAttorneyCounsel for Precision Planting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSuhani MehrotraAttorneyCounsel for Precision Planting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselTodd A. GangelAttorneyCounsel for Precision Planting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmChapman Spingola LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Precision Planting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmHovey Williams LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Precision Planting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMichael P. MazzaAttorneyCounsel for Kabat American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselPaul Robert HaleAttorneyCounsel for Kabat American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmMichael P. Mazza LLCLaw FirmRepresenting Kabat American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmMichael P. Mazza, LlcLaw FirmRepresenting Kabat American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge John J. Tharp, Jr.JudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Upon the consent and agreement of Plaintiff, Precision Planting, LLC, and Defendant, Kabat American, Inc., the Court, having reviewed the file and record, and being duly and sufficiently advised, hereby enters the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, order and judgment: 1. Precision Planting is a Delaware limited-liability company with a principal place of business in Trenton, Illinois. 2. Kabat American is an Illinois corporation with a principal place of business in Saint Charles, Illinois. 3. This is a patent-infringement action arising under Title 35, United States Code. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). 4. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties. 5. Precision Planting commenced this action by filing a complaint against Kabat American for claims of patent infringement relative to U.S. Patent No. 9,144,189 (“the ’189 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,746,007 (“the ’007 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,879,702 (“the ’702 Case: 1:25-cv-03117 Document #: 54 Filed: 11/17/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:841 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 10,359,062 (“the ’062 Patent”) (collectively “the Hydraulic Cylinder Patents”); U.S. Patent No. 7,631,606 (“the ’606 Patent or the Seed Meter Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,162,963 (“the ’963 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,798,080 (“the ’080 Patent”) (together “the Singulation Brush Patents”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,550,020 (“the ’020 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,301,438 (“the ’438 Patent”) (together “the Pressure Control Patents”) (all collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). 6. Precision Planting asserted that Kabat American made, used, sold, offered to sell, and/or imported products that are identified with product numbers P343022, P343025, and P343030 (“the Seed Meter Products”) that infringed on the Seed Meter Patents. Precision Planting also asserted that Kabat American made, used, sold, offered to sell, and/or imported infringing products that are identified with product numbers WMCT32X89 (“the Hydraulic Cylinder Products”), P729600 (“the Solenoid Valve Set Products”), P343022, P343025, and P343030 (“the Singulation Brush Products”), and ACY2X2 (“the Air Cylinder Products”) (together “the Accused Products”). Kabat American contested infringement as to all the Accused Products. 7. On October 22, 2025, the parties agreed to entry of this Stipulated Judgment. 8. From October 22, 2025 and for the life of and until the last to expire of the Seed Meter and the Hydraulic Cylinder Patents, Kabat American is enjoined and restrained from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the above identified (see Par. 6) Seed Meter Products, Hydraulic Cylinder Products, and/or Solenoid Valve Set Products. 9. The parties stipulate that the claims of the Asserted Patents are valid and enforceable. 10. The parties waive any and all right to appeal from this Stipulated Judgment. Case: 1:25-cv-03117 Document #: 54 Filed: 11/17/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:842 11. This Stipulated Judgment shall constitute a final judgment in this matter, with each party bearing its own attorney fees and costs.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:25-cv-03117, Illinois Northern District Court

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.

PACER case 1:25-cv-03117 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US7631606B2 — Precision Planting Seed Meter and Planter Control Patents

Publication No.US7631606B2
Application No.US11/207296
Patent details
ProductSeed meter for precision planting — controls individual seed delivery to the furrow
Cited in actionMarch 24, 2025

Publication No.US7162963B2
Application No.US10/919158
Patent details
ProductSingulation brush system for seed meters — brush-based seed singulation mechanism
Cited in actionMarch 24, 2025

Publication No.US9879702B2
Application No.US14/417145
Patent details
ProductHydraulic cylinder system for planter down-force — pressure regulation via hydraulic actuator
Cited in actionMarch 24, 2025

Publication No.US8550020B2
Application No.US12/970708
Patent details
ProductPneumatic pressure control system for planter row units — air-based down-force management
Cited in actionMarch 24, 2025

Publication No.US9144189B2
Application No.US13/951362
Patent details
ProductHydraulic cylinder down-force apparatus — row unit load control for precision planters
Cited in actionMarch 24, 2025

Publication No.US9301438B2
Application No.US14/047465
Patent details
ProductPressure control system for agricultural planter row units — active load sensing and adjustment
Cited in actionMarch 24, 2025

Publication No.US9746007B2
Application No.US14/868374
Patent details
ProductHydraulic cylinder planter down-force system — variable hydraulic pressure per row unit
Cited in actionMarch 24, 2025

Publication No.US7798080B2
Application No.US11/623130
Patent details
ProductSingulation brush and seed meter assembly — brush geometry for seed separation and singulation
Cited in actionMarch 24, 2025

Publication No.US10359062B2
Application No.US15/688775
Patent details
ProductHydraulic down-force planter system — multi-row hydraulic cylinder control and actuation
Cited in actionMarch 24, 2025

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.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

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.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7631606B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Precision Planting, LLC patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern case history, Precision Planting, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Deere & Co. planter IP casesAftermarket agri-parts disputesN.D. Ill. consent judgment casesHydraulic down-force patent suits
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What 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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Full strategic analysis of Precision Planting’s precision agriculture patent enforcement approach at the N.D. Illinois district court level.
Patent expiry timelineLicensing strategy signalsCompetitor exposure map
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Precision v Kabat — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

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.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.