Rinamo v. VNE Corporation: Universal Gripper Patent Dispute Dismissed Without Prejudice
Kim Rinamo, Janne Huovila, and Jorgen Johansson filed suit against VNE Corporation in the Western District of Wisconsin asserting US10627013B2, a patent covering universal gripper technology. After 233 days of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss the action without prejudice, leaving the door open for future proceedings.
Gripper Patent Suit Ends in Mutual Dismissal, Claims Preserved
On June 11, 2024, Kim Rinamo, Janne Huovila, and Jorgen Johansson — the named inventors and co-plaintiffs — filed a patent infringement action against VNE Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The suit centred on US10627013B2, a granted U.S. patent covering universal gripper technology, which plaintiffs alleged VNE Corporation was infringing through its commercial activities.
The case was terminated on January 30, 2025, when the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs’ infringement claims against VNE Corporation were not adjudicated on the merits and may be reasserted in future litigation. The parties agreed to each bear their own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, suggesting a negotiated exit rather than a decisive victory for either side.
The case resolved in approximately 233 days — well within the pre-trial window — consistent with a negotiated resolution or strategic pause rather than a full litigation cycle. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal is commercially significant: it preserves the patent’s enforceability and the plaintiffs’ ability to pursue VNE Corporation or other parties in future proceedings. What prompted the stipulation — whether licensing discussions, claim re-evaluation, or a broader commercial arrangement — is not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 233 days
233 days — resolved before trial, typical for stipulated dismissals in W.D. Wis.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — Stipulated dismissal, no merits ruling
A dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties and results in no judgment on the merits. The court did not rule on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The patent US10627013B2 remains in force and unchallenged by any court finding. This mechanism is commonly used when parties reach an off-record resolution or need to pause litigation strategically.
No merits adjudicationClaims survive — plaintiffs may refile against VNE or others
A without-prejudice dismissal means the infringement claims are not extinguished. Plaintiffs Rinamo, Huovila, and Johansson retain the right to reassert US10627013B2 against VNE Corporation in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. This contrasts with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar refiling. The public record is silent on whether a licensing arrangement or other commercial agreement underlies this outcome.
Claims preserved for refilingVNE Corporation avoids judgment but faces continuing patent risk
VNE Corporation exits this action without an adverse infringement finding, which is a short-term positive. However, since the dismissal is without prejudice, the company cannot treat this as a definitive resolution. US10627013B2 remains valid and enforceable, and plaintiffs could reinitiate litigation. VNE may need to consider freedom-to-operate strategies or licensing negotiations to achieve lasting certainty around the universal gripper patent.
No judgment — exposure remainsUniversal gripper IP landscape remains unresolved for the sector
Because the case ended without a claim construction ruling or merits decision, the scope and enforceability of US10627013B2 is untested by litigation. Competitors and manufacturers working with universal gripper or adaptive clamping technology should monitor this patent closely. A without-prejudice dismissal in a multi-inventor patent case often signals ongoing commercial negotiations, and enforcement activity may resume or extend to new targets.
Patent scope untestedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kim Rinamo | Individual | Co-inventors and patent holders of US10627013B2 — universal gripper technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Janne Huovila | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Jorgen Johansson | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | VNE Corporation | Company | VNE Corporation — accused infringer of universal gripper patent technologySearch 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bryce Alexander Loken | Attorney | Counsel for VNE CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Piery | Attorney | Counsel for VNE CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathan Oesch | Attorney | Counsel for VNE CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Quarles & Brady LLP | Law Firm | Representing VNE CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Wisconsin Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which requires both parties’ consent and produces no ruling on the merits of the infringement claim. The explicit without-prejudice designation preserves the plaintiffs’ right to refile, making this a procedural endpoint rather than a substantive resolution. The mutual cost-bearing clause suggests neither party secured a decisive advantage, and any underlying commercial arrangement — if one exists — remains confidential outside the public record.
US10627013B2 — Universal Gripper Mechanism
US10627013B2 is a granted U.S. utility patent covering a universal gripper — a class of mechanical or electromechanical device capable of grasping objects of varying shape and size without requiring custom tooling. The patent originates from application number US16/091546 and was asserted by its named inventors. Universal gripper technologies sit at the intersection of industrial automation, robotics, and precision manufacturing, where adaptive gripping capability reduces changeover time and expands system flexibility.
Strategically, a patent covering a universal gripper mechanism holds significant value in sectors where automated handling of diverse part geometries is a competitive differentiator — including automotive, electronics assembly, logistics, and collaborative robotics. The three co-inventor structure suggests a research or startup-origin IP asset that may be selectively licensed or enforced. Given the unresolved litigation, any company commercialising adaptive gripper technology should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and conduct thorough FTO analysis before product launch or scale-up.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10627013B2?
Any R&D team developing, manufacturing, or distributing universal gripper systems, adaptive end-effectors, or multi-geometry clamping devices should evaluate exposure under US10627013B2. The patent survived this litigation without a validity or non-infringement ruling, meaning its claims remain presumptively valid and enforceable. Companies supplying gripper technology to automation, robotics, or industrial handling markets face the most direct risk, particularly if their products address variable-shape object handling without fixed tooling.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP and R&D teams to map the specific claims of US10627013B2 against their product architecture, identify prior art that could support an invalidity defence, and surface related patent families held by the same inventors. Eureka’s claim-by-claim analysis can pinpoint which product features create the greatest infringement exposure, helping legal and engineering teams prioritise design-around work or licensing outreach before this patent is next enforced.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10627013B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Universal Gripper & Mechanical Gripping Patent Cases
Browse comparable patent infringement cases involving gripper and adaptive clamping technology filed in Midwestern U.S. district courts, including the Western District of Wisconsin.
What this case signals for the universal gripper IP landscape
A without-prejudice exit preserves enforcement leverage — and raises questions for every competitor in the adaptive gripping technology space.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve enforcement rights — monitor for refiling
US10627013B2 remains fully enforceable following this dismissal. Patent professionals advising clients in the gripper, clamping, or robotic end-effector space should flag this patent for ongoing monitoring. A stipulated dismissal of this type frequently precedes either a licensing agreement or a strategic pause before enforcement resumes against a broader set of defendants.
No claim construction means patent scope is still commercially uncertain
The absence of any merits ruling means there is no judicial guidance on how broadly US10627013B2 reads on competitor products. Companies designing or selling universal gripper systems face unresolved FTO risk. A proactive FTO analysis against the claims of US10627013B2 is advisable before launching or expanding products in this category.
Rinamo v VNE — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). This means the infringement claims asserted under US10627013B2 were not decided on the merits and may be refiled by the plaintiffs — Kim Rinamo, Janne Huovila, and Jorgen Johansson — in future proceedings.
US10627013B2 covers a universal gripper mechanism — an adaptive gripping or clamping device capable of handling objects of varying shape and size. The patent originated from U.S. application number US16/091546 and was asserted in an infringement action against VNE Corporation in the Western District of Wisconsin.
The plaintiffs were Kim Rinamo, Janne Huovila, and Jorgen Johansson — three co-inventors who collectively hold rights to US10627013B2. They were represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. VNE Corporation was the sole defendant, represented by Quarles & Brady LLP.
The stipulation specifies that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This clause is consistent with a negotiated exit where neither party achieved a clear litigation victory. It may suggest a private resolution — such as a licensing agreement or covenant not to sue — though no such agreement is disclosed in the public record.
Yes. Because the dismissal was entered without prejudice, the plaintiffs retain the right to refile their infringement claim against VNE Corporation under US10627013B2, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. VNE Corporation did not obtain an adjudication of non-infringement or patent invalidity, meaning it faces continuing legal exposure unless it secures a licence or successfully challenges the patent in a future proceeding.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.