SME Steel & Core-Brace v. Seismic Bracing Co. — Federal Circuit Affirmed
SME Steel Contractors and Core-Brace LLC pursued a patent infringement appeal against Seismic Bracing Company and Andrew Hinchman at the Federal Circuit, asserting four patents covering buckling-restrained brace and bearing brace technology. After 666 days, the court affirmed — leaving the lower court’s findings intact and the patents’ enforceability position strengthened.
Federal Circuit closes seismic brace patent dispute after lengthy appeal
SME Steel Contractors, Inc. and Core-Brace, LLC — plaintiffs and joint patent holders in the buckling-restrained brace space — brought an infringement action against Seismic Bracing Company, LLC and individual defendant Andrew Hinchman. The dispute centred on four U.S. patents (US7305799B2, US7174680B2, US6826874B2, and US8869468B2) covering bearing brace apparatus and buckling-restrained brace technology used in seismic damping steel structures. The case reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under docket No. 23-2426, filed on 26 September 2023.
The Federal Circuit issued an affirmance order — ‘ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED’ — on 23 July 2025, closing the matter after 666 days. An affirmance at this level means the appellate court found no reversible legal error in the district court proceedings below, leaving that tribunal’s conclusions on infringement and validity undisturbed. For the patent holders, all four asserted patents remain enforceable as adjudicated, without modification by the appellate court. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Appeal Dismissed’, which is consistent with a procedural affirmance order in some Federal Circuit docketing conventions.
A duration of 666 days suggests the appeal involved substantive briefing rather than a swift procedural resolution, though the public record does not disclose whether oral argument was held. The affirmance outcome typically signals that the challenger’s arguments — whether directed at claim construction, obviousness, or non-infringement — did not persuade the appellate panel. What remains unknown from publicly available records includes the precise grounds argued on appeal, whether any claims were narrowed in construction, and whether a costs or attorney-fees motion accompanied the final order.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 666 days
666-day appeal — above the median Federal Circuit appeal timeline of ~500 days
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
What ‘AFFIRMED’ means at the Federal Circuit
An affirmance by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit means the panel reviewed the record and found no reversible legal error in the lower court’s decision. The lower court’s findings on infringement, validity, or both remain in force exactly as decided. The Federal Circuit applies different standards depending on the issue — de novo for claim construction, clear error for factual findings — so an affirmance confirms the lower court correctly applied the law across all reviewed grounds.
No reversible error foundCore-Brace and SME Steel: patents survive appellate challenge
The affirmance is a meaningful win for SME Steel Contractors and Core-Brace. All four asserted patents — covering buckling-restrained brace and bearing brace apparatus technology — retain the enforceability status determined below. Competitors in the seismic bracing space now face a judicially confirmed patent landscape, with each failed challenge typically raising the practical and reputational bar for future invalidity attacks on the same family.
Patents remain enforceableSeismic Bracing and Hinchman: appellate options exhausted at this level
For Seismic Bracing Company and Andrew Hinchman, the affirmance closes the Federal Circuit avenue. Further challenge would require a petition for rehearing en banc at the Federal Circuit — statistically unlikely to be granted — or a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, which rarely reviews patent infringement disputes. Absent a successful IPR petition at the USPTO on independent grounds, the lower court’s liability findings are effectively final.
Appeal avenue exhaustedStrengthened patents raise the bar for seismic brace competitors
A Federal Circuit affirmance on four buckling-restrained brace patents sends a clear signal to the broader seismic structural engineering sector. Manufacturers and suppliers considering design-arounds, licensing negotiations, or validity challenges now face a higher hurdle: the patent claims have withstood both district court scrutiny and appellate review. Companies active in seismic damping structures should reassess their FTO posture against this consolidated patent family.
Higher bar for future challengeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Sme Steel Contractors, Inc. | Company | Seismic structural engineering — joint holders of four buckling-restrained brace patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Core-brace, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Seismic Bracing Company, LLC | Company | Seismic Bracing Company, LLC — competitor in the buckling-restrained brace market, and individual co-defendant Andrew HinchmanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Andrew Hinchman | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James T. Burton | Attorney | Counsel for Sme Steel Contractors, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin W. Starr | Attorney | Counsel for Sme Steel Contractors, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Eixenberger | Attorney | Counsel for Sme Steel Contractors, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kirton & McConkie PC | Law Firm | Representing Sme Steel Contractors, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott David Swanson | Attorney | Counsel for Seismic Bracing Company, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shaver & Swanson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Seismic Bracing Company, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order — ‘THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED’ — is a merits disposition confirming no reversible error was identified in the proceedings below. The terse affirmance language is standard for Federal Circuit summary affirmances, which carry full precedential (or Rule 36 judgment) weight. It does not indicate which specific grounds — claim construction, infringement, validity — were reviewed, but it forecloses further challenge on the arguments presented. The basis of termination recorded as ‘Appeal Dismissed’ is consistent with how some courts docket summary or per curiam affirmances procedurally.
US7305799B2 — Bearing brace apparatus and buckling-restrained brace technology
The four asserted patents span two generations of buckling-restrained brace (BRB) technology. US6826874B2 (application filed December 2000) and US7174680B2 (application filed May 2002) represent the foundational filings covering core BRB configurations used in seismic-resistant steel structures. US7305799B2 (application filed March 2003) covers bearing brace apparatus refinements, while US8869468B2 (application filed March 2013) extends the family into a later generation of BRB design — suggesting active portfolio development over more than a decade. BRBs are structural elements that absorb seismic energy by yielding under both tension and compression, making them critical in earthquake-resistant construction.
The commercial significance of this patent cluster lies in the infrastructure and construction sectors, where buckling-restrained braces are specified in high-seismic-zone buildings, bridges, and industrial facilities. The multi-patent strategy — spanning application dates from 2000 to 2013 — creates overlapping coverage that is difficult for competitors to entirely design around. Following Federal Circuit affirmance, these patents carry heightened enforceability signal value, and any company active in BRB manufacturing, supply, or installation in the U.S. should audit their product portfolio against all four patent numbers.
Should you run an FTO against US7305799B2 and the Core-Brace patent family?
Any manufacturer, contractor, or supplier involved in buckling-restrained brace or bearing brace apparatus products for U.S. seismic construction projects faces meaningful infringement exposure from this four-patent family. The patents have now survived district court adjudication and Federal Circuit review — the two most significant litigation hurdles. If your product competes in the BRB, seismic damping steel structure, or bearing brace apparatus space, a freedom-to-operate analysis against US7305799B2, US7174680B2, US6826874B2, and US8869468B2 is not optional — it is commercially essential before any new product launch or expansion into U.S. markets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map claim scope across all four asserted patents simultaneously, identifying overlap with your own product architectures and surfacing relevant prior art that could support IPR petitions if needed. Eureka’s citation graph also identifies continuation applications and related filings that may extend the effective coverage of this family beyond the four litigated numbers — ensuring your FTO assessment captures the full enforcement perimeter, not just the patents named in this case.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7305799B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patent appeals in seismic and structural engineering
Explore Federal Circuit patent infringement appeals involving structural engineering, seismic bracing, and construction technology patents with comparable claim scope and affirmance outcomes.
What this case signals for the seismic bracing IP landscape
Four affirmed patents and a 666-day appeal define the enforceability boundaries for buckling-restrained brace technology in the U.S. market.
Affirmed patent clusters require immediate FTO reassessment
When a patent family survives both district court and Federal Circuit review, the litigation risk premium for competitors rises materially. Any company manufacturing or supplying buckling-restrained braces, bearing brace apparatus, or seismic damping steel structures in the U.S. should treat these four affirmed patents as active enforcement risk — not historical noise.
Individual co-defendant liability signals personal exposure for founders
The inclusion of Andrew Hinchman as a named individual defendant — alongside the corporate entity — is consistent with patent holders pursuing personal liability theories such as inducement or wilful infringement by a controlling individual. This pattern typically signals that plaintiffs will pierce the corporate veil where evidence of personal direction of infringing activity exists.
Sme v Seismic — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court decision in Case No. 23-2426, issuing an order stating ‘ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED’ on 23 July 2025. This means the appellate court found no reversible legal error in the proceedings below, leaving the district court’s findings on the four asserted buckling-restrained brace patents intact.
Four U.S. patents were asserted: US7305799B2 (bearing brace apparatus), US7174680B2 (buckling-restrained brace), US6826874B2 (buckling-restrained brace, earliest filing), and US8869468B2 (later-generation BRB design). Together, they cover a range of buckling-restrained brace and seismic damping steel structure technologies.
A Federal Circuit affirmance means the appellate court reviewed the lower court’s decision and found no reversible error, leaving the original findings fully intact. For the four Core-Brace and SME Steel patents, this confirms their enforceability as determined below. Competitors challenging these patents would need to pursue IPR at the USPTO or seek en banc rehearing or Supreme Court certiorari — both low-probability paths.
The public record does not disclose the specific theory of individual liability. However, naming an individual co-defendant alongside a corporate entity is typically consistent with claims of induced infringement, wilful infringement, or personal direction of infringing activity. This pattern is common where patent holders seek to ensure any judgment is not rendered unenforceable by corporate restructuring.
The appeal ran for 666 days from filing on 26 September 2023 to closure on 23 July 2025. This is above the median Federal Circuit appeal timeline, which typically ranges from approximately 18 to 24 months. The extended duration suggests substantive briefing was filed and reviewed, though the public record does not confirm whether oral argument was scheduled or held.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.