Signode v. Samuel Son & Co.: Strapping Tool Patent Suit Settled With Prejudice
Signode Industrial Group LLC filed suit against Samuel Son & Co. Ltd. and its US subsidiary in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three patents covering battery-powered strapping tool technology across the Orgapack, BXT3, and Strapex product lines. The case resolved by stipulated dismissal with prejudice after 400 days, with each party bearing its own fees and costs.
Strapping Tool IP Battle Ends in Confidential Settlement After 400 Days
Signode Industrial Group LLC, a global leader in industrial packaging and strapping systems, filed this infringement action on February 6, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted three United States patents — US11667417B2, US11932430B2, and US11667418B2 — against Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd. (a Canadian steel and metals distributor) and its US subsidiary, Samuel, Son & Co. (USA) Inc. The accused products included the Orgapack ORT-130/260/450/670 series, Signode BXT3-13/16/19/32 series, and Strapex 71/73/75/77 series strapping tools.
The case closed on March 12, 2025, via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice. Both parties jointly filed the stipulation, confirming they had reached a settlement. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, denied all pending relief as moot, and directed the clerk to close the case. Critically, the dismissal is with prejudice, meaning Signode is barred from reasserting the same patent claims against Samuel in a future action. The fee arrangement — each side bearing its own costs — is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a court-ordered outcome.
A 400-day duration from filing to dismissal suggests the parties conducted meaningful litigation activity — likely including claim construction briefing, discovery exchanges, and potentially early invalidity or non-infringement contentions — before reaching commercial terms. The public record does not disclose the financial or licensing terms of the settlement, which is typical for commercially sensitive disputes in this sector. What remains unknown is whether Samuel obtained a license to the asserted patents, agreed to design-around its products, or negotiated a cross-licensing arrangement. The resolution leaves the three Signode patents intact and potentially enforceable against other market participants.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 400 days
400 days — above the median for patent cases settled before trial in E.D. Texas
Settled and dismissed with prejudice: what the resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal is filed jointly by both parties and requires no court approval on the merits. When entered ‘with prejudice,’ the plaintiff permanently relinquishes the right to refile the same claims against the same defendants. Judge Gilstrap accepted the stipulation and formally closed the case. No findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope were made — the patents themselves survive untouched.
Voluntary, bilateral, no merits rulingSignode retains its patents but forfeits future claims against Samuel
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Signode accepted a permanent bar on reasserting US11667417B2, US11932430B2, and US11667418B2 against Samuel and its US subsidiary. In exchange, Signode likely secured commercial consideration — typically a lump-sum payment, running royalty, or product modification commitment — though the terms are confidential. The patents remain valid, issued, and enforceable against all other parties in the market.
Patents survive; claims against Samuel extinguishedSamuel resolves exposure without a validity or infringement ruling
Samuel, Son & Co. and its US subsidiary exited the litigation without any court finding of infringement. The with-prejudice dismissal provides certainty: Signode cannot revive this specific action. However, the settlement does not constitute a license unless expressly negotiated as such, and the public record is silent on whether Samuel received any IP clearance. Future product iterations by Samuel could theoretically attract a new infringement claim under different theories.
Cleared of this action; broader IP exposure uncertainThree active strapping tool patents remain a live threat for the sector
The resolution leaves all three Signode patents — covering battery-powered strapping tool systems across multiple product lines — fully intact and presumptively valid. Competitors offering similar Orgapack-class or BXT3-class strapping equipment should treat this settlement as a signal that Signode is prepared to enforce its portfolio. The own-costs provision and relatively swift resolution suggest both parties saw commercial value in avoiding a prolonged Markman hearing and trial in E.D. Texas.
Portfolio enforcement risk remains elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Signode Industrial Group, LLC | Company | Industrial packaging and strapping systems company — holder of US11667417B2, US11932430B2, US11667418B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd. | Company | Canadian steel and metals distributor and its US subsidiary, accused of infringing strapping tool patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samuel, Son & Co., (USA) Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for Signode Industrial Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Caroline McLeod Vermillion | Attorney | Counsel for Signode Industrial Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Devon C. Beane | Attorney | Counsel for Signode Industrial Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jared Robert Lund | Attorney | Counsel for Signode Industrial Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason A. Engel | Attorney | Counsel for Signode Industrial Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathan J. Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Signode Industrial Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | K&L Gates LLP | Law Firm | Representing Signode Industrial Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | K&L Gates LLP (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing Signode Industrial Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Fair Henry PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Signode Industrial Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gabriella Salek | Attorney | Counsel for Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Houston | Attorney | Counsel for Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Pavan K. Agarwal | Attorney | Counsel for Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tiffany K. Sung | Attorney | Counsel for Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Foley & Lardner – Washington | Law Firm | Representing Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Foley & Lardner LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Foley & Lardner LLP (Los Angeles) | Law Firm | Representing Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation quotes both parties confirming they ‘have settled this litigation,’ indicating a voluntary commercial resolution rather than a litigated outcome. The with-prejudice qualifier is legally significant: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes, permanently barring Signode from reasserting these three patents against Samuel. The own-costs provision is standard in jointly negotiated dismissals and does not reflect a court finding on prevailing-party status under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US11667417B2, US11932430B2 & US11667418B2 — Battery-Powered Strapping Tool Systems
The three asserted patents — US11667417B2, US11932430B2, and US11667418B2 — relate to battery-powered strapping tool technology used in industrial packaging and logistics operations. Their corrected application numbers (US18/149827, US18/306547, and US18/151259) indicate relatively recent filings, consistent with a continuation or continuation-in-part family directed at commercially current product generations. The patents cover mechanical, electromechanical, and control-system aspects of portable strapping tools designed to tension, seal, and cut plastic or steel strapping in high-throughput industrial environments.
Strapping tools are a high-volume segment of industrial packaging, used extensively in steel, timber, logistics, and manufacturing. Signode’s assertion of three closely related patents across three product lines — Orgapack, BXT3, and Strapex — suggests the patents are mapped to specific product functionalities rather than a single broad claim. For competitors in this space, the survival of all three patents post-settlement means Signode retains a multi-layered enforcement position. Any manufacturer or distributor of battery-powered strapping tools with tensioning or sealing mechanisms similar to those covered by these patents faces potential infringement risk and should assess design freedom carefully.
Should you run an FTO against US11667417B2, US11932430B2, and US11667418B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing battery-powered strapping tools — particularly those competitive with the Orgapack ORT, Signode BXT3, or Strapex 71–77 series — should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against these three patents. The settlement does not reduce the patents’ enforceability against third parties, and Signode’s willingness to litigate in E.D. Texas signals active portfolio enforcement intent. R&D teams developing next-generation strapping tool platforms should review claim scope before finalising product architectures.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP teams to map product features against the claim language of US11667417B2, US11932430B2, and US11667418B2 simultaneously. Eureka can identify related continuations, family members, and prosecution history estoppel — critical context for assessing whether design-around options exist. The platform also monitors new filings from Signode’s portfolio in real time, so your team is alerted to emerging assertion risk before a complaint is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11667417B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Industrial Packaging & Strapping Tool Disputes in E.D. Texas
Explore patent infringement cases involving industrial packaging tools, battery-powered hand tools, and packaging equipment IP litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the industrial packaging IP landscape
Signode’s three-patent assertion in E.D. Texas underscores the competitive intensity around battery-powered strapping tool technology.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for packaging equipment IP disputes
Judge Gilstrap’s docket is well-established for patent cases. Filing three related patents simultaneously signals a coordinated enforcement strategy designed to maximise claim breadth and settlement leverage. Companies in the strapping and industrial packaging space should monitor Signode’s continuation filings for emerging assertion risk.
Own-costs settlement terms often signal a licensing component was reached
When both parties agree to bear their own costs in a patent settlement, it typically suggests the primary commercial consideration was a license fee or product access arrangement rather than a damages payment. The absence of a fee award does not indicate a defendant win — it reflects a negotiated resolution structure where both sides had sufficient leverage.
Signode v Samuel — key questions answered
Signode Industrial Group LLC filed a patent infringement action against Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd. and Samuel, Son & Co. (USA) Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on February 6, 2024. The case asserted three patents covering battery-powered strapping tool technology. The parties settled and filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice on March 12, 2025, with each side bearing its own fees and costs.
Signode asserted US11667417B2, US11932430B2, and US11667418B2 — three patents relating to battery-powered strapping tool systems. The corrected application numbers are US18/149827, US18/306547, and US18/151259 respectively, suggesting a continuation patent family directed at commercially current strapping tool products including the Orgapack ORT, BXT3, and Strapex series.
A dismissal with prejudice means Signode permanently waived its right to refile the same patent claims against Samuel and its US subsidiary. It operates as a final adjudication for claim-preclusion purposes. The three asserted patents remain valid and enforceable against other parties, but Signode cannot bring a new action against Samuel based on the same patents and accused products.
The accused products included the Orgapack ORT-130, ORT-260, ORT-450, and ORT-670 series; the Signode BXT3-13, BXT3-16, BXT3-19, and BXT3-32 series; and the Strapex 71, 73, 75, and 77 series strapping tools — all battery-powered industrial strapping devices distributed by Samuel, Son & Co.
The Eastern District of Texas, particularly Judge Gilstrap’s court, is one of the most active patent litigation venues in the United States and is consistently chosen by patent holders for its established procedures and experienced bench. Filing in E.D. Texas is consistent with a deliberate enforcement strategy designed to maximise early settlement leverage and litigation efficiency for multi-patent assertions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.