Provisur Technologies vs. Weber, Inc.: Food Processing Patent Dispute Ends in Voluntary Dismissal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc., et al. |
| Case Number | 5:19-cv-06021 |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri |
| Duration | Feb 2019 – Feb 2026 7 years |
| Outcome | Dismissed with Prejudice (Confidential Settlement) |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Fill and packaging apparatus, food product vacancy reduction systems, optical grading systems, servo-controlled distribution conveyors, sheet interleavers, and yield monitoring systems. |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A leading manufacturer of industrial food processing equipment, including high-speed slicers, packaging systems, and conveyor automation platforms. Its IP portfolio reflects decades of engineering investment in food handling automation.
🛡️ Defendant
A major international competitor in precision food slicing technology, alongside co-defendants Textor, Inc. and Textor Maschinenbau GmbH, with deep roots in European food equipment manufacturing.
Patents at Issue
This battle involved seven U.S. patents covering sophisticated food slicing, packaging, and conveyor automation technologies, sitting at the operational core of modern commercial food processing lines.
- • US8322537B2 — Fill and packaging apparatus
- • US6669005B2 — Food product vacancy reduction system
- • US9399531B2 — Optical grading system for slicer apparatus
- • US6320141B1 — Servo-controlled distribution conveyor
- • US6997089B2 — Sheet interleaver for slicing apparatus
- • US7065936B2 — Yield monitoring system for a slicing apparatus
- • US7533513B2 — Related slicing system technology
Developing food processing equipment?
Check if your industrial automation design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case concluded via a stipulated voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). The dismissal covered all claims and counterclaims across all parties, with each party agreeing to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. All parties expressly waived all rights of appeal. No damages award, no injunctive relief, and no public licensing terms were disclosed, indicating a confidential private resolution.
Key Legal Issues
The prolonged timeline and final dismissal point to a strategic calculus for both sides. Litigating against six defendants (including four German entities) and managing seven asserted patents implied enormous costs. Weber’s counterclaims likely posed significant invalidity risks to Provisur’s portfolio. Resolving the dispute privately allowed Provisur to preserve patent validity while eliminating further litigation expenses and risks, making a confidential settlement the most rational outcome for this complex, multi-patent assertion.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in industrial food equipment design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View the 7 asserted patents and their claims
- See which companies are most active in food processing automation patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for slicing equipment
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Food slicing and automation technologies
40+ Related Patents
In food processing automation
Design-Around Options
Available for most claims
✅ Key Takeaways
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice and mutual fee-bearing strongly indicates confidential settlement — monitor related IPR filings at the USPTO for post-litigation portfolio signals.
Search related case law →Seven-patent, multi-defendant assertions in equipment cases routinely extend to 5+ years; trial budgets must reflect this reality.
Explore litigation analytics →Frequently Asked Questions
Seven U.S. patents were asserted: US8322537B2, US6669005B2, US9399531B2, US6320141B1, US6997089B2, US7065936B2, and US7533513B2, covering food slicing, optical grading, conveyor, and packaging automation technologies.
The parties filed a stipulated voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A), with each party bearing its own costs — consistent with a confidential private resolution after extended litigation.
It reinforces that comprehensive portfolio assertions against multi-entity competitors are viable leverage tools, but that extended litigation costs and invalidity counterclaim risks make negotiated resolution the most common endpoint.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER — Case No. 5:19-cv-06021
- USPTO Patent Center — Search Patents
- World Intellectual Property Organization — Industrial Design Protection
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.