REV Ambulance Group v. PL Custom Body: Consent Judgment for Plaintiff in 128 Days
REV Ambulance Group Orlando sued competitor PL Custom Body and Equipment over US Patent No. 11,896,534, protecting an external condenser and light assembly for vehicle bodies. The parties settled before any factual or legal trial, with the New Jersey District Court entering a consent judgment in REV’s favor — resolving the dispute in just 128 days.
A swift consent judgment signals competitive pressure in specialty vehicle IP
Filed on 23 December 2024 in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey, this action saw REV Ambulance Group Orlando, Inc. assert US Patent No. 11,896,534 — issued February 13, 2024 and covering an external condenser and light assembly for mounting on a vehicle body — against PL Custom Body and Equipment Co., Inc., a competitor in the specialty vehicle and emergency equipment sector. The complaint alleged patent infringement arising from PL Custom’s manufacture or sale of products covered by the asserted claims.
The case closed on 30 April 2025 via a consent judgment — a judicially entered order reflecting the parties’ negotiated resolution. Under its terms, final judgment was entered in REV’s favour; the court formally recognised REV’s ownership of the patent and its rights thereunder. Critically, all financial terms — damages, attorney fees, and costs — were resolved privately between the parties and are not disclosed in the public record. PL Custom and REV each waived their right to appeal the order.
The 128-day resolution is notably rapid for a district court patent case, suggesting the parties likely reached accommodation quickly once litigation commenced — consistent with either a pre-existing commercial relationship, a straightforward infringement read-across, or commercial pressure to avoid prolonged disruption. The private financial settlement means the true economic terms remain unknown, though the consent judgment structure formally vindicates REV’s patent ownership and leaves PL Custom with no appeal path.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 128 days
128 days — resolved well under the median district court patent case lifecycle of 2–3 years
Consent judgment for REV: what the settlement structure means for both parties
Consent judgment: settlement with judicial force
A consent judgment is a court-entered order reflecting terms agreed by both parties — it carries the same legal weight as a litigated judgment. Here, the court formally adjudged final judgment in REV’s favour, meaning PL Custom cannot re-litigate the same patent claims. Both parties also expressly waived any right of appeal, making the disposition permanent under the terms of this order.
Judgment on the meritsREV secures formal judicial recognition of patent ownership
The order confirms REV as the owner of US11896534B2 and all rights thereunder. While the financial resolution is confidential, entry of judgment on the merits creates a record REV can reference in future enforcement actions. The patent, issued February 2024, is still early in its term, suggesting continued enforcement potential against other competitors in the specialty vehicle market.
Patent rights confirmedPL Custom exits with sealed financial terms but no appeal right
PL Custom agreed to entry of judgment against it on the merits and waived appeal rights — a significant concession that forecloses future challenges to this judgment. The private financial settlement means the cost to PL Custom is not publicly known, but the company likely agreed to some form of licensing, royalty, or cessation terms. The waiver of appeal rights is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested defeat.
Appeal rights waivedREV’s patent creates a credible enforcement precedent in vehicle body IP
The successful — and rapid — resolution of this action signals that US11896534B2 is commercially enforceable. Other manufacturers of external condenser and light assemblies for specialty vehicles should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk. The confidential damages structure is typical of situations where parties prefer commercial resolution over public financial disclosure, but the judicial record strengthens REV’s hand in any future dispute.
Enforcement risk elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | REV Ambulance Group Orlando, Inc. | Company | Specialty vehicle manufacturer — holder of US11896534B2 for external condenser and light assemblySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | PL CUSTOM BODY AND EQUIPMENT CO., INC. | Company | PL Custom Body and Equipment Co., Inc. — specialty vehicle body and equipment manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory D. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for REV Ambulance Group Orlando, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy P. Gonzalez | Attorney | Counsel for REV Ambulance Group Orlando, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rivkin Radler, LLP | Law Firm | Representing REV Ambulance Group Orlando, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The consent judgment is carefully drafted to achieve finality without public financial disclosure. The court’s formal finding of jurisdiction and entry of merits judgment in REV’s favour — combined with the parties’ mutual waiver of appeal — creates a binding, permanent record. The phrase ‘issue with respect to damages…otherwise determined by plaintiff REV and defendant PL’ confirms financial terms were privately negotiated and will not appear in any public filing, which is consistent with a commercially motivated resolution rather than a fully litigated damages determination.
US11896534B2 — External condenser and light assembly for vehicle bodies
US Patent No. 11,896,534 (application number US17/320479) was issued on 13 February 2024, covering an external condenser and light assembly designed for mounting on the body of a vehicle. The patent addresses the integration of HVAC condenser and lighting functions into a single external assembly — a design relevant to ambulances, emergency vehicles, and other specialty vehicle platforms where rooftop or exterior mounting space is at a premium and multi-function integration reduces complexity.
Strategically, this patent gives REV Ambulance Group a proprietary position over a component that is architecturally embedded in specialty vehicle builds. For OEMs and custom body manufacturers supplying emergency services fleets, any design incorporating an externally mounted combined condenser and light unit must be evaluated against the claims of US11896534B2. The patent’s issuance in early 2024 and immediate enforcement suggest REV is actively building an IP moat around its specialty vehicle platform innovations.
Should you run an FTO against US11896534B2?
Any manufacturer, coachbuilder, or equipment supplier producing external condenser and light assemblies for mounting on ambulance or specialty vehicle bodies should treat this patent as an active FTO concern. The consent judgment confirms the patent is enforceable and that REV is prepared to litigate. Products that combine external HVAC condenser functionality with lighting in a vehicle-mounted assembly are squarely in scope for a claims analysis.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of US11896534B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may bear on claim validity, and flag related REV filings in the same technology family. Given the speed at which REV moved from grant to litigation, proactive FTO analysis is a lower-cost alternative to defending a consent judgment demand.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11896534B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in specialty vehicle and automotive equipment IP
Cases involving externally mounted vehicle component patents litigated in the New Jersey District Court and across the specialty automotive equipment sector.
What this case signals for the specialty vehicle and emergency equipment IP landscape
A rapid consent judgment in a freshly issued patent’s first enforcement action is a notable competitive signal for vehicle body and equipment manufacturers.
Newly issued patents can generate immediate, enforceable results
US11896534B2 was issued in February 2024 and enforcement began by December 2024 — within ten months of grant. This timeline suggests REV had a litigation-ready strategy built around this patent, and competitors should monitor newly issued patents in the specialty vehicle sector as potential near-term enforcement triggers.
Consent judgment structure limits public disclosure but maximises enforceability
By settling via consent judgment rather than voluntary dismissal, REV preserved a formal merits record while keeping financial terms private. This hybrid structure is increasingly common in patent cases where plaintiffs want judicial validation of ownership but defendants seek confidentiality of any licensing or compensation terms.
REV v PL — key questions answered
The case was resolved by a consent judgment entered in favour of plaintiff REV Ambulance Group Orlando, Inc. The New Jersey District Court formally adjudged final judgment for REV, confirming its ownership of US11896534B2. Financial terms — including damages and attorney fees — were resolved privately and are not disclosed in the public record.
US11896534B2, issued 13 February 2024, covers an external condenser and light assembly for mounting on the body of a vehicle. The patent integrates HVAC condenser and lighting functions in a single externally mounted unit — a design particularly relevant to ambulances and emergency specialty vehicles.
A consent judgment is a court-entered final order reflecting a settlement agreed by both parties. It carries full merits weight and — as here — can include an express waiver of appeal rights. For PL Custom, this means the judgment against it is permanent; the company cannot challenge it through the courts and must comply with whatever private terms were agreed with REV.
The consent order states that damages, attorney fees, costs, and related relief were ‘otherwise determined’ by the parties — meaning the financial resolution was negotiated privately as part of the settlement and is not disclosed in the court record. The absence of a court-ordered damages figure is standard in consent judgment settlements where parties prefer confidentiality.
The consent judgment confirms US11896534B2 is actively enforced. Manufacturers and coachbuilders producing external condenser and light assemblies for vehicle body mounting — particularly in the ambulance and emergency vehicle segment — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against the claims of US11896534B2. REV’s rapid move from patent grant to litigation suggests an active enforcement posture.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.