SPG Dry Cooling USA v. Evapco Dry Cooling: Three-Patent ACC Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
SPG Dry Cooling USA LLC filed suit against Evapco Dry Cooling Inc. in the District of New Jersey, asserting three patents covering modular air-cooled condenser technology — including claims tied to Evapco’s AT-ACC product line. After 1,162 days of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice, each bearing its own legal costs.
Three-patent ACC infringement action ends by mutual stipulation in New Jersey
On 22 December 2020, SPG Dry Cooling USA LLC filed this infringement action against Evapco Dry Cooling Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 2:20-cv-20131). SPG asserted three patents — US9551532B2, US10551126B2, and US10527354B2 — all directed at modular air-cooled condenser (ACC) apparatus and methods. The accused products included Evapco’s air-cooled condensers, specifically identified as including at least the AT-ACC model.
The case closed on 27 February 2024 when both parties jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning SPG Dry Cooling is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Evapco in federal court. Notably, the stipulation provided that each side would bear its own legal costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a symmetric arrangement that suggests neither party extracted a clearly dominant concession on fees.
At 1,162 days, the case ran for over three years before resolving without a court judgment on the merits. That duration is consistent with cases that progress through discovery and potentially claim construction before settling or stipulating to dismissal. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement, cross-license, or other commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal — a common but unconfirmed driver of with-prejudice stipulations of this kind. What remains unknown is which party, if either, obtained commercial or licensing value outside the court record.
Filing to dismissal in 1162 days
Days from filing to dismissal — longer than most stipulated dismissals but shorter than a full NJ patent trial
Joint stipulation with prejudice — what the dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): Stipulated dismissal by both parties
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order if all parties who have appeared sign the stipulation. This mechanism reflects mutual agreement — neither party was compelled to dismiss by a court ruling. It is commonly used when litigation resolves commercially, though the precise terms of any underlying agreement remain private.
No court merits ruling‘With prejudice’ bars SPG from relitigating the same claims
A dismissal with prejudice carries full res judicata effect. SPG Dry Cooling cannot refile the same patent infringement claims — on US9551532B2, US10551126B2, or US10527354B2 — against Evapco Dry Cooling in any federal court. This is a meaningful concession by the plaintiff and is often associated with settlement, licensing, or a strategic decision to cease enforcement against this specific defendant.
Permanent bar on refilingSymmetric cost order signals negotiated parity
The stipulation explicitly provides that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This is a deliberate bilateral arrangement, not a default outcome — courts typically award costs to the prevailing party absent agreement otherwise. A symmetric cost order suggests the parties reached a negotiated equilibrium, consistent with a settlement in which neither side conceded a clear win on the underlying merits.
No fee-shifting enteredThree-year duration suggests substantive litigation before resolution
At 1,162 days, the case ran well beyond the typical timeline for early dismissal motions. This duration is consistent with the parties having engaged in at least some discovery and potentially claim construction proceedings before arriving at a negotiated exit. For competitors in the air-cooled condenser space, this signals that SPG’s patents were not immediately defeated on preliminary challenges — the patents survived long enough to prompt a with-prejudice resolution.
Patents not quickly invalidatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Spg Dry Cooling USA, LLC | Company | Thermal cooling technology company — holder of US9551532B2, US10551126B2, and US10527354B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Evapco Dry Cooling, Inc. | Company | Evapco Dry Cooling Inc. — manufacturer of air-cooled condenser systems including the AT-ACC product lineSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | J. BRUGH LOWER | Attorney | Counsel for Spg Dry Cooling USA, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Deni , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Spg Dry Cooling USA, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jessica K. Formichella | Attorney | Counsel for Evapco Dry Cooling, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Liza M. Walsh | Attorney | Counsel for Evapco Dry Cooling, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Selena Miriam Ellis | Attorney | Counsel for Evapco Dry Cooling, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William T. Walsh , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Evapco Dry Cooling, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | New Jersey District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The stipulation invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — a purely consensual mechanism requiring no judicial finding on the merits. The with-prejudice designation is the legally significant term: it extinguishes SPG’s right to bring the same claims against Evapco again. The mutual cost-bearing provision removes any fee-shifting risk for either side. Taken together, the language is consistent with a negotiated resolution — potentially including licensing terms — rather than a capitulation by either party.
US9551532B2, US10551126B2 & US10527354B2 — Modular Air-Cooled Condenser Technology
The three patents asserted by SPG Dry Cooling USA — US9551532B2 (application US13/478827), US10551126B2 (application US16/196840), and US10527354B2 (application US16/515363) — protect modular air-cooled condenser apparatus and associated methods. Air-cooled condensers are critical heat rejection components used in power generation and industrial cooling applications where water-cooled systems are impractical. The distinct application numbers across the family suggest SPG pursued a layered filing strategy, potentially through continuation or divisional applications, to build broad and independently claimable coverage across different aspects of the technology.
For competitors in the air-cooled and dry-cooling condenser market, the survival of all three patents through a 1,162-day litigation without invalidation is a material commercial signal. Evapco’s AT-ACC was specifically named as an accused product, indicating SPG’s claims extend to modular, commercially deployed ACC units. Companies developing, manufacturing, or procuring air-cooled condensers — particularly modular designs — face potential exposure to this patent family. The multi-patent assertion strategy also increases design-around difficulty, as clearing one patent may not eliminate all claim risk from the family.
Should your ACC product line be cleared against SPG’s three-patent portfolio?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or deploying modular air-cooled condensers — particularly those using configurations similar to Evapco’s AT-ACC — should treat SPG Dry Cooling’s patent family as an active FTO concern. This case demonstrates that SPG is willing to litigate all three patents simultaneously in federal court. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only the dispute with Evapco; every other market participant’s exposure is unaffected. Product teams evaluating new ACC deployments or design iterations should initiate FTO analysis before committing to a final architecture.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US9551532B2, US10551126B2, and US10527354B2 against your product specifications, surfacing prior art and identifying design-around opportunities across all three legs of the family simultaneously. Claim monitoring alerts will flag any prosecution activity or continuation filings that could extend SPG’s coverage — critical intelligence for product and IP teams in the dry cooling and industrial thermal management sector.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9551532B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in air-cooled and dry-cooling technology
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the industrial cooling and ACC patent landscape
Three asserted patents, one major ACC product line, and a three-year dispute that ended privately — here is what IP and product teams should take away.
SPG’s three ACC patents remain in force — not invalidated by this case
A dismissal with prejudice reflects a resolution between these two parties only. US9551532B2, US10551126B2, and US10527354B2 were not invalidated or cancelled through this proceeding. Other competitors in the air-cooled condenser market have no court ruling protecting them from assertion — each company’s exposure is independent of this outcome.
AT-ACC-type products are in the crosshairs of SPG’s patent portfolio
The specific identification of Evapco’s AT-ACC in the complaint signals that SPG is prepared to assert its modular ACC patents against commercial product lines. Companies operating or planning to deploy similar air-cooled condenser architectures should assess their FTO position against all three asserted patents before commercialisation or product expansion.
Spg v Evapco — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 27 February 2024 by joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No court ruling on the merits was issued. The dismissal permanently bars SPG from reasserting the same claims against Evapco.
SPG Dry Cooling USA LLC asserted three U.S. patents: US9551532B2 (application US13/478827), US10551126B2 (application US16/196840), and US10527354B2 (application US16/515363). All three cover modular air-cooled condenser apparatus and methods. The accused products included Evapco’s air-cooled condensers, specifically identifying at least the AT-ACC model.
A dismissal with prejudice resolves only the dispute between SPG and Evapco. It has no effect on other companies’ exposure to SPG’s patent portfolio. US9551532B2, US10551126B2, and US10527354B2 were not invalidated and remain enforceable. Other ACC manufacturers should conduct independent FTO analysis against these patents.
The 1,162-day duration suggests the parties engaged in substantive litigation — potentially including discovery and claim construction — before reaching a resolution. Cases that resolve by stipulation after multi-year timelines are often consistent with a negotiated commercial settlement, though the specific terms of any underlying agreement are not disclosed in the public court record.
The explicit agreement that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees is a deliberate bilateral arrangement, not a default. It prevents either side from seeking fee recovery under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or other fee-shifting provisions. This symmetric outcome is typically associated with negotiated resolutions where neither party secured a dominant litigation advantage, and may suggest a commercially balanced settlement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.