REV Ambulance Group v. Braun Industries: Infringement Action Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
REV Ambulance Group Orlando, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Braun Industries, Inc. in the Northern District of Ohio over US11896534B2, covering emergency vehicles with external condenser box and light assemblies. The parties jointly dismissed all claims with prejudice after 333 days, with each side bearing its own costs and expressly waiving appeal rights.
Ambulance Rival Patent Fight Ends in Mutual Dismissal Before Trial
On 27 December 2024, REV Ambulance Group Orlando, Inc. initiated patent infringement proceedings against Braun Industries, Inc. before Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The asserted patent, US11896534B2, covers emergency vehicles incorporating an external condenser box and light assembly — a product configuration directly relevant to the ambulance and emergency vehicle manufacturing market in which both parties compete.
The case reached resolution on 25 November 2025, when the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims and defenses were dismissed, each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, and both sides expressly waived any right to appeal. A dismissal with prejudice forecloses REV Ambulance from reasserting the same claims against Braun Industries in any future proceeding on this patent.
The 333-day duration suggests the parties reached resolution after some degree of pre-trial engagement — potentially following claim construction briefing, discovery exchanges, or licensing negotiations — though the public record is silent on the specific terms driving the resolution. The mutual cost waiver and express appeal waiver are consistent with a negotiated settlement, though no settlement terms have been disclosed. Whether any commercial arrangement, licensing deal, or design-around agreement underpins the dismissal remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 333 days
333 days from filing to dismissal — consistent with pre-trial resolution before significant discovery costs
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical qualifier: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently extinguishing REV Ambulance’s ability to refile the same infringement claims against Braun Industries on US11896534B2. The express waiver of appeal rights further closes any appellate pathway.
Permanent bar on refilingREV Ambulance permanently relinquishes these specific claims
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, REV Ambulance Group sacrifices the right to pursue Braun Industries again on US11896534B2 for the conduct alleged in this action. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against third parties; however, the res judicata effect of a with-prejudice dismissal means this specific dispute with Braun is closed permanently. The rationale — whether commercial settlement, licensing, or strategic withdrawal — is not disclosed in the public record.
Patent survives; claims do notBraun Industries achieves finality without a merits ruling
Braun Industries secures closure without any judicial finding of infringement, validity, or invalidity. Critically, the with-prejudice dismissal shields Braun from future suit by REV on these specific claims, providing meaningful commercial certainty. The mutual cost waiver means Braun absorbs its own defense costs — a factor that typically signals the defendant accepted some concession in parallel negotiations, though this cannot be confirmed from the public record.
No liability finding; future claims barredEmergency vehicle IP landscape: what competitors should note
US11896534B2 remains an active, enforceable patent that REV Ambulance Group can assert against other emergency vehicle manufacturers. The resolution with Braun does not affect the patent’s scope or its potential use against competitors in the ambulance and emergency vehicle sector. Manufacturers designing external condenser box and light assembly configurations should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent regardless of the Braun outcome.
Patent still enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | REV Ambulance Group Orlando, Inc. | Company | Emergency vehicle manufacturer — holder of US11896534B2 covering condenser box and light assembly systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Braun Industries, Inc. | Company | Braun Industries, Inc. — ambulance and emergency vehicle manufacturer based in OhioSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Philip S. Heebsh | Attorney | Counsel for REV Ambulance Group Orlando, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Roetzel & Andress – Toledo | Law Firm | Representing REV Ambulance Group Orlando, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew W. Alexander | Attorney | Counsel for Braun Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark W. McDougall | Attorney | Counsel for Braun Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew J. Goggin | Attorney | Counsel for Braun Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mitchell R. Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Braun Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP (Cleveland) | Law Firm | Representing Braun Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Carlson, Caspers, Vandeburg & Lindquist | Law Firm | Representing Braun Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick | Judge | Ohio Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation records an unambiguous with-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), jointly signed by both parties. The phrasing ‘all claims and defenses’ confirms the resolution is comprehensive — no counterclaims, affirmative defenses, or ancillary relief survives. The express waiver of appeal rights is notable: it goes beyond the standard Rule 41 mechanism and suggests the parties intended to eliminate any procedural pathway to reinstatement or appellate challenge, consistent with a fully negotiated exit rather than a unilateral withdrawal.
US11896534B2 — Emergency Vehicle External Condenser Box and Light Assembly
US11896534B2, filed under application number US17/320479, protects emergency vehicle configurations in which an external condenser box is integrated with a light assembly. This type of claim is directed at the physical architecture of ambulance bodies — specifically how HVAC condenser components are mounted externally and co-located with emergency lighting systems. The patent sits within the specialised domain of emergency vehicle body engineering, where packaging constraints, regulatory lighting requirements, and thermal management considerations converge.
For the competitive ambulance manufacturing market, this patent represents a meaningful design constraint. Both REV Ambulance Group and Braun Industries build custom ambulance bodies where external component placement is a key differentiator for performance and aesthetics. A granted patent covering condenser-and-light integration gives the patent holder leverage over competitors adopting similar exterior configurations. The resolution of this case without a validity ruling means the patent’s enforceability has not been tested and should be treated as presumptively valid by any competitor in the emergency vehicle sector.
Should you run an FTO against US11896534B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or supplying emergency vehicle body systems — particularly ambulances incorporating externally mounted HVAC condensers combined with lighting assemblies — should treat US11896534B2 as a priority FTO target. The patent’s resolution against one competitor without a validity finding means the claims remain intact. Upfitters, body builders, and OEM suppliers working on ambulance configurations should specifically assess whether their condenser box placement and light assembly integration fall within the patent’s independent claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim boundaries of US11896534B2 against your product designs, identify prior art that may inform a validity challenge, and surface any related continuation or divisional applications filed by REV Ambulance Group that could extend the patent family’s reach. For R&D teams working on next-generation emergency vehicle body designs, early-stage FTO analysis against this patent family can prevent costly redesigns or enforcement exposure further down the development cycle.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11896534B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Disputes in Emergency Vehicle and Specialty Vehicle Manufacturing
Explore related patent infringement actions involving emergency vehicle body systems and specialty vehicle components litigated in Ohio federal district courts.
What this case signals for the emergency vehicle IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit by two competing ambulance manufacturers warrants close attention from the broader emergency vehicle sector.
US11896534B2 remains live — third-party exposure is unchanged
The dismissal resolves only REV Ambulance’s claims against Braun Industries. The patent covering emergency vehicle external condenser box and light assemblies is still in force. Any competitor operating in this product space should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and review current designs for potential overlap.
Mutual cost waivers in competitor disputes often signal negotiated resolution
When two direct market competitors dismiss with prejudice and each bears its own costs, the structure is consistent with a negotiated commercial arrangement — whether a cross-license, design-around commitment, or market allocation understanding. The public record does not confirm this, but the pattern is commercially significant for monitoring purposes.
REV v Braun — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars REV Ambulance Group from refiling the same infringement claims against Braun Industries based on US11896534B2. It functions as a final adjudication on the merits of this specific dispute. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties.
Yes. The dismissal resolves only the claims between REV Ambulance Group and Braun Industries. US11896534B2, covering emergency vehicles with external condenser box and light assemblies, remains a granted and presumptively valid US patent. REV Ambulance can assert it against other manufacturers or importers of competing emergency vehicle configurations.
The stipulation expressly provides that each party bears its own costs and fees, with no award to either side. This structure is consistent with a negotiated resolution, where neither party concedes liability and both agree to absorb litigation costs as part of a broader commercial arrangement. The specific commercial terms, if any, are not disclosed in the public record.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Case No. 3:24-cv-02249) and assigned to Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick. It was filed on 27 December 2024 and closed on 25 November 2025, lasting 333 days.
US11896534B2 covers emergency vehicles configured with an external condenser box and light assembly. The plaintiff, REV Ambulance Group Orlando, Inc., is an emergency vehicle manufacturer and patent holder. The defendant, Braun Industries, Inc., is an Ohio-based competitor in the ambulance and emergency vehicle manufacturing market. Both companies design and build custom ambulance bodies.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.