Rinamo v. Advance Fittings LLC: Universal Gripper Patent Action Dismissed in 17 Days
Three co-plaintiffs — Kim Rinamo, Janne Huovila, and Jrgen Johansson — filed an infringement action against Advance Fittings LLC in the Western District of Wisconsin asserting US10627013B2, a patent covering a universal gripper. The case closed just 17 days after filing when plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before the defendant had answered.
A 17-day patent action that ended before it began
On June 11, 2024, Kim Rinamo, Janne Huovila, and Jrgen Johansson — acting as co-plaintiffs through counsel at Rabicoff Law LLC — filed an infringement action in the Western District of Wisconsin against Advance Fittings LLC. The complaint asserted US10627013B2, a patent covering a universal gripper, against the defendant’s fitting and coupling products.
The case lasted just 17 days. On June 28, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant has served an answer or moved for summary judgment. Advance Fittings LLC had not yet responded to the complaint at the time of dismissal.
The brevity of the litigation — 17 days from filing to closure — suggests the dismissal may reflect early settlement negotiations, a strategic reassessment, or a procedural filing strategy, though the public record does not disclose the underlying reason. No costs were awarded and no substantive rulings were entered, leaving the merits entirely unresolved.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 17 days
17 days — closed before defendant filed any response
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 filing means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows dismissal as of right
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant has served an answer or moved for summary judgment. Here, Advance Fittings LLC had not yet answered, so the dismissal was effective upon filing the notice — no judicial approval was required.
Procedural dismissalWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
The notice states the action is dismissed ‘without prejudice’, meaning plaintiffs retain the right to refile the same claims against Advance Fittings LLC. A dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar refiling. The public docket here records a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, so the patent claims remain live and enforceable.
Refiling remains possibleAdvance Fittings exits without any merits ruling
Because the case was dismissed before substantive proceedings, Advance Fittings LLC faces no injunction, damages award, or adverse finding. However, the dismissal without prejudice means the infringement allegations have not been adjudicated and could be reasserted. The defendant received no declaratory judgment of non-infringement.
No merits adjudicationUS10627013B2 remains enforceable — litigation risk persists
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves US10627013B2 fully intact and enforceable. Companies in the fittings, couplings, and mechanical gripping technology space should treat this as an unresolved patent risk. Plaintiffs retain all enforcement options, and the speed of dismissal suggests the dispute may resurface through settlement, licensing, or refiling.
Patent still activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kim Rinamo | Individual | Co-inventors and patent holders of US10627013B2, a universal gripper patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Janne Huovila | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Jrgen Johansson | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Advance Fittings LLC | Company | Advance Fittings LLC — manufacturer of fittings and coupling componentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Kim RinamoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Kim RinamoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Wisconsin Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and confirms the defendant had not yet answered or moved for summary judgment. This means the dismissal took effect automatically upon filing — no court order was needed and no merits were considered. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ designation preserves plaintiffs’ right to refile identical claims, and Advance Fittings LLC receives no declaratory or injunctive protection as a result of this proceeding.
US10627013B2 — Universal Gripper Mechanical Technology
US10627013B2, filed under application number US16/091546, covers a universal gripper — a mechanical coupling device designed to engage and secure pipes, fittings, or similar components across variable dimensions. The patent’s ‘universal’ designation suggests claims directed at adaptable gripping geometries or mechanisms capable of interfacing with a range of fitting sizes or profiles, which is commercially significant in the plumbing, HVAC, and industrial piping sectors.
For fitting manufacturers and distributors like Advance Fittings LLC, a broadly scoped universal gripper patent can create meaningful design-around challenges, particularly if the claims cover common coupling configurations. The patent was asserted in active commerce, and its continued enforceability post-dismissal means it represents ongoing IP risk for any company whose product line involves gripping or securing pipe fittings.
Should you run an FTO against US10627013B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing universal grippers, push-fit couplings, or adaptable pipe fittings should consider an FTO analysis against US10627013B2. The patent was actively asserted against a fittings LLC, confirming the patentees are willing to enforce. R&D teams developing new coupling mechanisms or gripping assemblies are particularly exposed if their designs overlap with the asserted claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10627013B2 against your product specifications, surface relevant prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and identify any continuation applications or related family members that may extend the enforcement footprint. Starting an FTO now — before any demand letter arrives — is significantly more cost-effective than responding under litigation pressure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10627013B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: universal gripper and mechanical coupling disputes
Explore related infringement actions involving mechanical gripping and fitting technology filed in Wisconsin federal district courts and across the US.
What this case signals for the mechanical gripping IP landscape
A 17-day patent action closed without merits resolution leaves enforceable claims on the table and open questions for competitors.
Early dismissals without prejudice are a common enforcement signal
Cases dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) within days of filing often reflect rapid out-of-court developments — licensing discussions, early settlement, or strategic repositioning. The absence of any responsive filing from Advance Fittings suggests the case may have been resolved commercially before formal engagement began.
US10627013B2 remains a live infringement risk for fitting manufacturers
The patent was asserted, not challenged. Without an IPR petition, a declaratory judgment action, or a merits ruling, US10627013B2 stands enforceable. Competitors in the universal gripper and mechanical coupling space — particularly those selling into industrial or plumbing fitting markets — should assess their exposure.
Rinamo v Advance — key questions answered
Kim Rinamo, Janne Huovila, and Jrgen Johansson filed an infringement action against Advance Fittings LLC in the Western District of Wisconsin on June 11, 2024, asserting US10627013B2 covering a universal gripper. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on June 28, 2024 — just 17 days after filing — before the defendant answered.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss a case without a court order before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. In this case the dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs can refile the same infringement claims against Advance Fittings LLC in the future. No merits were decided and no costs were awarded.
Yes. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not affect the validity or enforceability of US10627013B2. The patent remains in force and the plaintiffs retain all enforcement rights. Companies in the universal gripper or mechanical fitting space should not treat this dismissal as a signal that the patent is inactive or unenforceable.
The plaintiffs — Kim Rinamo, Janne Huovila, and Jrgen Johansson — appear to be individual patent holders or co-inventors asserting US10627013B2 directly without a corporate patent assertion entity intermediary. Direct inventor enforcement is common where co-inventors jointly hold rights and choose to litigate personally rather than assigning to a licensing vehicle.
The complaint identifies a ‘universal gripper’ as the product involved, asserted against Advance Fittings LLC, a manufacturer of fitting and coupling components. The specific accused products were not adjudicated given the early dismissal, but the patent covers universal gripper coupling technology relevant to pipe fittings and mechanical gripping assemblies.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.