Rack Abilities v. EZ 4X4: Rolling Door Cart Patent Dispute Settled in 217 Days
Rack Abilities, LLC and inventor Alan Poudrier filed suit against EZ 4X4, LLC and associated entities in Florida’s Northern District, asserting US11654947B1 covering a folding rolling door cart design. The case resolved by settlement after 217 days, with the court retaining a 60-day reopening window in the event the settlement was not consummated.
Inventor and LLC pursue rolling cart patent claim; settle swiftly
On October 19, 2023, Rack Abilities, LLC and inventor Alan Poudrier filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against EZ 4X4, LLC, Elecor Manufacturing, LLC, ODP, LLC, Tracy Forlini, and Brian Goldwitz. The asserted patent, US11654947B1, covers the EZ Folding Rolling Door Cart — a mechanical device for transporting and storing doors — filed under application number US17/408442.
The case closed on May 23, 2024, after the court was informed the parties had reached a settlement. The court dismissed the action from its active docket while expressly reserving the power to reopen proceedings within 60 days upon a showing of good cause, consistent with standard conditional settlement dismissal practice. The settlement terms are not publicly disclosed.
At 217 days from filing to closure, the resolution is notably swift for patent infringement litigation, suggesting the parties may have reached commercial accommodation without protracted discovery or claim construction proceedings. The inclusion of individual defendants — Tracy Forlini and Brian Goldwitz — alongside the corporate entities typically signals allegations of personal liability or direct participation in the accused conduct, though no public findings were made on the merits.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 217 days
217 days — below the median for patent infringement cases in the Florida Northern District, suggesting early resolution pressure.
Case settled: what the dismissal order means for both parties
Conditional settlement dismissal — not a final merits ruling
The court dismissed the case from its active docket after being notified of settlement, but explicitly reserved the right to reopen within 60 days if the settlement was not consummated. This conditional structure is standard for negotiated resolutions and means no judicial finding was made on infringement, validity, or damages. The dismissal is administrative, not adjudicative.
No merits determinationPublic record does not specify with or without prejudice
The court’s order uses the language ‘Case Dismissed’ without expressly stating whether dismissal is with or without prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice bars refiling; without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile. The public record is silent on this distinction, which is common in settlement-driven dismissals where the parties’ private agreement may govern re-filing rights. Practitioners should not assume either characterisation.
Prejudice status unconfirmedNo infringement finding — but settlement has IP implications
EZ 4X4, LLC and co-defendants avoided a public adjudication of infringement or invalidity. However, settlement typically involves commercial terms — potentially a licence, design-around commitment, or payment — that constrain future conduct. The inclusion of individual defendants Forlini and Goldwitz suggests the settlement likely addressed personal exposure alongside corporate liability.
No public liability findingPatent US11654947B1 remains in force and fully enforceable
Because the case settled without any validity or infringement ruling, US11654947B1 retains its presumption of validity. Rack Abilities and Poudrier remain free to assert it against other parties in the folding rolling door cart market. Competitors in this mechanical handling product space should treat this settlement as a signal that the patent holder is prepared to litigate and that FTO clearance against this patent is advisable.
Patent survives unchallengedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Rack Abilities, LLC | Company | Patent holding and product company — holder of US11654947B1 for folding rolling door cartSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Alan Poudrier | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | EZ 4X4, LLC | Company | EZ 4X4, LLC — manufacturer/distributor of folding rolling door cart product, and related entitiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Elecor Manufacturing, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | ODP, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Tracy Forlini | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Brian Goldwitz | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen Douglas Milbrath | Attorney | Counsel for Rack Abilities, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Accel IP Law, PLLC (Orlando FL) | Law Firm | Representing Rack Abilities, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Scott Nelles. | Attorney | Counsel for EZ 4X4, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | JOHNSON & MARTIN PA – FORT LAUDERDALE FL | Law Firm | Representing EZ 4X4, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s dismissal order, triggered by the parties’ notification of settlement, is procedural rather than substantive. No findings were made on infringement, validity, or damages. The 60-day conditional reopening clause — standard in settlement dismissals — indicates the court retained supervisory jurisdiction to ensure the deal was consummated. The absence of explicit with or without prejudice language leaves the re-filing question governed by the private settlement agreement rather than the public order.
US11654947B1 — EZ Folding Rolling Door Cart mechanical transport device
US11654947B1, filed under application number US17/408442, protects the design and mechanical configuration of a folding rolling door cart — a device engineered to transport and store door panels in commercial or construction settings. The patent’s B1 designation indicates it issued without any post-grant amendment, and its relatively recent grant date places it squarely in the active enforcement window. The mechanical handling and jobsite equipment category has seen increasing patent activity as manufacturers seek to protect purpose-built tools.
For competitors in the construction equipment, material handling, and jobsite product space, US11654947B1 represents an active enforcement risk. The patent holder has demonstrated willingness to pursue litigation against multiple parties simultaneously — including manufacturers, distributors, and individuals. Any company developing, importing, or selling folding door transport carts should conduct a targeted FTO assessment against this patent, particularly given that the case resolved before any narrowing claim construction ruling was issued.
Should you run an FTO against US11654947B1?
Any manufacturer, importer, or distributor of folding rolling door carts or similar wheeled door transport devices operating in the U.S. market should treat US11654947B1 as a live enforcement risk. The patent holder demonstrated willingness to pursue multiple defendants simultaneously — including individual officers — and the case settled confidentially, leaving no claim narrowing on the public record. Product teams developing collapsible or wheeled panel transport equipment should commission FTO clearance before commercial launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11654947B1 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may support an invalidity argument, and surface related patents in the mechanical handling and cart transport space that could represent additional enforcement risk. Eureka also tracks litigation history for the patent holder, enabling your IP team to assess enforcement patterns and settlement likelihood before making product or market entry decisions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11654947B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: mechanical handling and rolling cart IP disputes
Explore comparable patent infringement actions in the mechanical cart and material handling sector litigated in U.S. district courts, including the Florida Northern District.
What this case signals for the mechanical cart and material handling IP landscape
A swift settlement with multiple defendants — including individuals — suggests a well-positioned patent and a plaintiff prepared to enforce it aggressively.
Early settlement signals patent holder confidence in claim strength
Cases that settle within 217 days rarely reach claim construction. This timeline suggests EZ 4X4 and co-defendants assessed litigation risk early and opted for commercial resolution. For competitors, this pattern typically signals the asserted patent — US11654947B1 — withstood initial scrutiny and the holder is an active enforcer.
Individual defendants named: personal liability exposure is real in this domain
The naming of Tracy Forlini and Brian Goldwitz alongside the corporate entities is a common enforcement tactic to prevent defendants from sheltering behind limited liability structures. Companies operating in the folding cart and door transport equipment space should ensure individual officers and directors understand their exposure in patent infringement scenarios.
Rack v EZ — key questions answered
The case settled. The Florida Northern District Court dismissed the action from its active docket on May 23, 2024, after the parties informed the court they had reached a settlement. No merits ruling on infringement or validity was issued. The court reserved the right to reopen within 60 days if the settlement was not consummated.
Rack Abilities, LLC and inventor Alan Poudrier asserted US11654947B1, filed under application number US17/408442. The patent covers the EZ Folding Rolling Door Cart — a mechanical device designed for transporting and storing door panels, relevant to construction and commercial installation markets.
Tracy Forlini and Brian Goldwitz were named as individual defendants alongside the corporate entities EZ 4X4, LLC, Elecor Manufacturing, LLC, and ODP, LLC. This practice is consistent with plaintiff strategies to pierce corporate structures and establish personal liability for officers or principals who allegedly directed or participated in the infringing conduct. No public findings were made on this issue.
No. Because the case settled without any judicial determination on validity or infringement, US11654947B1 retains its full presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. No claim construction order was issued. The patent remains enforceable and can be asserted against other parties in the folding rolling door cart market.
The public dismissal order does not expressly state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. The court’s order is administrative in nature, triggered by the parties’ settlement notification. The public record is silent on this distinction; the re-filing rights of the parties are likely governed by the terms of the private settlement agreement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.