River Road Jet Boats v. Rock Proof Boats: Venue Transfer After 160 Days
River Road Jet Boats and Waimed Enterprises filed a patent infringement suit against Rock Proof Boats over the ‘Nozzle Jett’ product, asserting two jet boat propulsion patents. After 160 days in the Western District of Virginia, the parties jointly stipulated to transfer the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Division.
Jet boat nozzle patent dispute lands in new venue after joint transfer
On December 29, 2023, River Road Jet Boats, LLC and co-plaintiff Waimed Enterprises, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Rock Proof Boats, LLC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The suit centers on the defendant’s ‘Nozzle Jett’ product and asserts two patents — US11649027B2 and US10618619B2 — covering jet boat propulsion nozzle technology. The case was filed as a first-instance proceeding with both plaintiffs represented by Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black, PLC.
The case closed on June 6, 2024, after just 160 days, when the court granted the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Transfer Venue. The transfer order directed the action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Division. A transfer on joint stipulation typically signals that both parties agreed the chosen forum was either inconvenient or lacked the strongest connection to the facts, witnesses, or evidence — no merits determination was made in Virginia.
A 160-day lifespan before transfer is consistent with early-stage venue negotiations, suggesting the parties likely raised forum issues promptly after service. The public record does not disclose whether any venue challenge was filed prior to stipulation, or whether any substantive motions were heard. The underlying merits dispute over the Nozzle Jett product and the two jet boat nozzle patents remains live and will now be adjudicated in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Filing to Case Transferred in 160 days
160-day stay in W.D. Virginia before joint transfer stipulation to M.D. Pennsylvania
Case transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania: what the venue shift means
Joint venue transfer: what it means procedurally
A joint stipulation to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) allows parties to agree that a different federal district is more appropriate. The court granted the stipulation ‘for good cause in the interest of justice.’ No merits ruling was issued — all substantive claims, defenses, and counterclaims carry over intact to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The slate is wiped only geographically, not legally.
No merits adjudicatedWhy the M.D. Pennsylvania forum may matter
The Middle District of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Division, will now govern discovery schedules, claim construction, and any dispositive motions. The transferee court applies its own local patent rules and case management practices. For the plaintiffs, maintaining venue in a court with relevant witnesses or manufacturing evidence is strategically significant. The Harrisburg Division has a distinct docket profile from W.D. Virginia, which may affect litigation pace and Markman timing.
New forum, same claimsLitigation continues — merits battle begins in Pennsylvania
Upon receipt of the transferred case, the M.D. Pennsylvania court will issue a new scheduling order. The parties will need to re-engage on discovery, potentially refile or update initial disclosures, and comply with the transferee court’s local patent rules. Any claim construction hearing will be scheduled anew. The two asserted patents — US11649027B2 and US10618619B2 — remain actively in suit against the Nozzle Jett product.
Active dispute continuesNozzle Jett remains under patent threat in new venue
For Rock Proof Boats, the transfer does not resolve infringement exposure — the ‘Nozzle Jett’ product remains the subject of live patent claims. Competitors in the jet boat propulsion nozzle market should note that the transfer signals both parties are invested in adjudicating the dispute rather than settling early. The strength of US11649027B2 and US10618619B2 as enforced assets will be tested in Pennsylvania.
Patent risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | River Road Jet Boats, LLC | Company | Jet boat technology company — holder of US11649027B2 and US10618619B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Waimed Enterprises, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Rock Proof Boats, LLC | Company | Boat manufacturer and seller of the accused ‘Nozzle Jett’ productSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joshua F P Long | Attorney | Counsel for River Road Jet Boats, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathan Arthur Evans | Attorney | Counsel for River Road Jet Boats, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Pietro Francesco Sanitate | Attorney | Counsel for River Road Jet Boats, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black, PLC | Law Firm | Representing River Road Jet Boats, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Siddhesh Vishnu Pandit | Attorney | Counsel for Rock Proof Boats, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Maier & Maier PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Rock Proof Boats, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Virginia Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The transfer order was granted on the basis of a Joint Stipulation, meaning neither party contested the move — a notably cooperative procedural posture in adversarial patent litigation. The court’s invocation of ‘good cause in the interest of justice’ is standard language under § 1404(a) and does not reflect any finding on the merits of infringement or validity. The case now proceeds in Harrisburg with its full scope of claims intact.
US11649027B2 & US10618619B2 — jet boat propulsion nozzle technology
US11649027B2 (application US17/014503) and US10618619B2 (application US15/618820) both relate to jet boat propulsion nozzle technology — the mechanical systems that direct high-pressure water output to propel and steer watercraft. The earlier application (US15/618820) predates the later by several years, suggesting a continuation or improvement patent family. Both patents are asserted against the ‘Nozzle Jett’ product, indicating the claimed inventions cover core design features of that specific product.
In the jet boat and personal watercraft sector, nozzle geometry and steering mechanism patents can create significant barriers to competitive product design. Holding two patents in this family gives River Road Jet Boats and Waimed Enterprises layered protection that is harder to design around. Competitors developing waterjet propulsion products should treat both patents as active enforcement risks, particularly given the plaintiffs’ willingness to litigate across federal districts.
Should you run an FTO against US11649027B2 and US10618619B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling jet boat nozzle assemblies or waterjet propulsion components should treat these two patents as a live FTO concern. The active litigation against the Nozzle Jett product demonstrates the patent holders are willing to enforce. Product teams working on nozzle geometry, thrust vectoring, or steering mechanisms for watercraft should commission claims analysis before market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US11649027B2 and US10618619B2 against your product specifications, surface relevant prior art, and flag design-around pathways. With the case now active in M.D. Pennsylvania, monitoring the docket for claim construction rulings will be essential — Eureka’s litigation tracker can alert you when Markman orders are issued.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11649027B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar jet boat nozzle and watercraft propulsion patent cases
Explore patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts involving waterjet propulsion, boat nozzle technology, and personal watercraft drivetrain patents similar to this W.D. Virginia action.
What this case signals for the jet boat propulsion IP landscape
A joint transfer so early in litigation suggests both parties see strategic value in the Pennsylvania forum — and in litigating the merits.
Early joint transfers often precede intensive merits litigation
When parties agree to transfer venue within 160 days of filing, it typically signals they resolved a threshold forum dispute without costly motion practice. This efficiency often means both sides are preparing for substantive engagement — claim construction, invalidity, and infringement arguments — rather than an early settlement.
Two asserted patents strengthen plaintiff’s enforcement posture
Asserting both US11649027B2 and US10618619B2 against a single product gives the plaintiffs redundancy in claim coverage. If one patent faces invalidity challenges, the second may survive. Companies in the jet boat nozzle space should audit their designs against both patent families before entering the market.
River v Rock — key questions answered
The plaintiffs assert two patents: US11649027B2 (application US17/014503) and US10618619B2 (application US15/618820), both covering jet boat propulsion nozzle technology. The accused product is the defendant’s ‘Nozzle Jett.’
The transfer was based on a Joint Stipulation by both parties. The court granted it under the ‘interest of justice’ standard (28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)). No contested motion was filed — both sides agreed that the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Division, was the more appropriate forum.
No. A venue transfer does not adjudicate any merits. All infringement claims, defenses, and any potential counterclaims carry over to the transferee court. The dispute over the Nozzle Jett product and both asserted patents remains fully live in M.D. Pennsylvania.
River Road Jet Boats, LLC and Waimed Enterprises, LLC are the co-plaintiffs. Both entities are represented by Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black, PLC. The dual-plaintiff structure may reflect joint patent ownership or a licensing arrangement between the two entities.
The ‘Nozzle Jett’ is the accused product manufactured or sold by Rock Proof Boats, LLC. Based on the asserted patents, it is consistent with a jet boat propulsion nozzle assembly. The plaintiffs allege it infringes the claims of US11649027B2 and US10618619B2.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.