Provisur Technologies v. Weber Inc.: Supreme Court Denies Slicing Machine Patent Petition
Provisur Technologies sought U.S. Supreme Court review of invalidity rulings affecting two high-speed slicing machine patents — US10625436B2 and US10639812B2. The Court denied the petition in just 104 days, leaving the lower-court decisions intact and closing off Provisur’s final appellate avenue.
Supreme Court Closes the Door on Provisur’s Slicing Machine Patent Battle
Provisur Technologies filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 2024, seeking review of lower-court decisions that had invalidated or cancelled claims in two patents covering high-speed slicing machinery: US10625436B2 and US10639812B2. The case, docketed as No. 23-1349, named Weber, Inc. as the respondent — a direct competitor in the industrial food processing equipment space. Provisur was represented by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; Weber was represented by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC.
The Supreme Court denied the petition on October 7, 2024 — just 104 days after filing. A certiorari denial is not a ruling on the merits; the Court does not explain its reasons and the denial does not constitute a precedential endorsement of the lower tribunal’s reasoning. However, the practical consequence for Provisur is decisive: the invalidity or cancellation findings from the proceedings below now stand as the final disposition, and the asserted patent claims cannot be enforced against Weber in that context.
The speed of the denial — well within the Court’s typical October Term review cycle — suggests the petition did not attract the four votes required for a grant, consistent with the Court’s historic certiorari grant rate of under 2%. The public record does not disclose whether the underlying challenge arose from inter partes review, district court litigation, or a combination. What remains clear is that Weber’s invalidity position has survived the highest judicial scrutiny available, materially strengthening its freedom to operate in the high-speed slicing machine segment.
Filing to Petition Dismissed in 104 days
104 days from filing to denial — faster than the median Supreme Court petition review cycle
Supreme Court denies certiorari: what the ruling means for both parties
Certiorari denied: no merits ruling, lower decision survives
A denial of certiorari means the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. It does not affirm or endorse the lower tribunal’s reasoning — it simply leaves that decision in place. The Court grants cert in fewer than 2% of petitions; a denial typically signals the case did not present a sufficiently novel federal question or circuit split to warrant review. For Provisur, all judicial avenues are now exhausted.
Final dispositionProvisur’s invalidated claims cannot be revived through further appeal
With the petition denied, Provisur Technologies has no remaining appellate path to challenge the invalidity or cancellation findings below. The affected claims of US10625436B2 and US10639812B2 are unenforceable to the extent they were cancelled or invalidated. Provisur may retain any surviving claims from those patents, and could theoretically pursue continuation applications, but the specific contested claims are effectively extinguished.
Claims extinguishedWeber secures durable freedom to operate in high-speed slicing
Weber, Inc. emerges with a settled invalidity finding that has now withstood Supreme Court scrutiny. This materially reduces its litigation exposure on these specific patent claims and strengthens its commercial position in the high-speed slicing machine market. The cert denial, while not precedential, signals that Weber’s legal strategy — likely pursued through IPR or district court invalidity — has achieved a durable result.
Freedom to operate securedPatent risk recalibrated for food processing equipment manufacturers
For competitors and new entrants in the industrial slicing machinery sector, the outcome suggests that Provisur’s two key slicing machine patents carry materially reduced enforcement risk on the invalidated claims. Product teams designing around these patents should re-examine the specific claim landscape — while some claims may survive, the litigation record likely provides useful prosecution history for FTO analysis. The outcome also reinforces the efficacy of IPR-based challenges in this technology domain.
Reduced enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Provisur Technologies | Company | Industrial food processing equipment company — holder of US10625436B2 and US10639812B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Weber, Inc. | Company | Weber, Inc. — high-speed slicing machine manufacturer and direct competitor to ProvisurSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Craig C. Martin | Attorney | Counsel for Provisur TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | MATTHEW FREIMUTH | Attorney | Counsel for Provisur TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | MICHAEL G. BABBITT | Attorney | Counsel for Provisur TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | SARA TONNIES HORTON | Attorney | Counsel for Provisur TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP | Law Firm | Representing Provisur TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard Anthony Crudo | Attorney | Counsel for Weber, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Weber, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | U.S. Supreme CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The one-word disposition — ‘Petition DENIED’ — is the Supreme Court’s standard form for declining certiorari and carries no merits weight. It does not indicate agreement or disagreement with the invalidity reasoning below. However, its practical effect is absolute: the lower tribunal’s cancellation or invalidity findings on the asserted claims of US10625436B2 and US10639812B2 are final. For Weber, this represents the strongest possible conclusion short of a merits affirmance. For Provisur, the denial forecloses any further judicial challenge to the affected claims.
US10625436B2 & US10639812B2 — High-Speed Slicing Machine Technology
US10625436B2 (application US16/210583) and US10639812B2 (application US16/017346) both protect innovations in high-speed slicing machine technology — a category central to automated food processing lines. These patents likely cover mechanical, control, or process innovations enabling precision, throughput, or safety improvements in commercial slicing equipment. Both applications were filed in the 2018 timeframe, placing them in a generation of food automation IP that emerged alongside broader Industry 4.0 adoption in food manufacturing.
In the competitive food processing equipment market — where Provisur and Weber are direct rivals — slicing machine patents represent critical commercial IP. Control over foundational slicing process claims can determine OEM exclusivity, licensing leverage, and the ability to block competitors from deploying comparable throughput or precision features. The invalidation of claims from both patents, now confirmed through Supreme Court denial, materially shifts the competitive balance toward Weber and any other manufacturers that were designing around or licensing these claims.
Should you run an FTO against US10625436B2 and US10639812B2?
Any manufacturer, integrator, or OEM developing high-speed slicing machinery for food processing applications should conduct a fresh FTO analysis in light of this outcome. While the Supreme Court denial confirms that specific claims were invalidated, the full claim-by-claim disposition is not always captured in top-level case records. Related continuation applications or divisional filings sharing priority with these patents may still carry live, enforceable claims that could affect product launches.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the surviving claim landscape across US10625436B2, US10639812B2, and their broader patent families — including continuations, divisionals, and related filings. R&D teams can use Eureka to cross-reference product feature sets against claim language, flag prosecution history estoppel from the IPR or invalidity proceedings, and generate clearance reports tailored to specific machinery configurations before market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10625436B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Food Processing Equipment Patent Cases at Federal Circuit & Supreme Court
Explore related invalidity and certiorari petition cases involving high-speed food processing machine patents adjudicated in U.S. federal courts.
What this case signals for the food processing equipment IP landscape
The Supreme Court’s swift denial closes a high-stakes patent dispute and reshapes the competitive IP position in industrial slicing technology.
Certiorari denial ends Provisur’s enforcement window on these claims
With all appellate options exhausted, competitors and licensees in the high-speed slicing machine market can treat the invalidated claims of US10625436B2 and US10639812B2 as extinguished. IP teams should update their FTO analyses to reflect the final disposition and identify any surviving claims that may still carry risk.
Weber’s IPR-style challenge strategy validated at the highest level
The successful defence of invalidity through to Supreme Court denial suggests Weber’s challenge strategy — likely inter partes review — was robustly constructed. For R&D teams developing competing slicing machinery, this outcome signals that patent challenges in this space have a viable path, and that Provisur’s portfolio may be more permeable than its filing activity suggests.
Provisur v Weber — key questions answered
A certiorari denial in Case No. 23-1349 means the Supreme Court declined to hear Provisur’s appeal. It is not a merits ruling and does not constitute legal precedent. However, it leaves the lower tribunal’s invalidity or cancellation findings on US10625436B2 and US10639812B2 as the final, unreviewable disposition. Provisur has no further judicial avenue to challenge those findings.
Two patents were at issue: US10625436B2 (application US16/210583) and US10639812B2 (application US16/017346). Both patents relate to high-speed slicing machine technology in the food processing equipment sector. The underlying proceedings involved an invalidity or cancellation action brought by Weber, Inc.
To the extent specific claims were cancelled or invalidated in the underlying proceedings, those claims are unenforceable and the Supreme Court denial makes that final. However, not all claims in a patent are necessarily invalidated in any single proceeding. Surviving claims, and related continuation or divisional applications, may still be live. A full FTO analysis is recommended before drawing definitive clearance conclusions.
The petition was filed on June 25, 2024 and denied on October 7, 2024 — a total of 104 days. This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s standard practice of resolving certiorari petitions within the same Term they are filed, and is faster than the median resolution time for fully briefed petitions that proceed to conference.
Provisur Technologies was represented by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, with attorneys including Craig C. Martin, Matthew Freimuth, Michael G. Babbitt, and Sara Tonnies Horton. Weber, Inc. was represented by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, with attorney Richard Anthony Crudo leading for the respondent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.