Spider Grills v. Loco Crazy Good Cookers: SmartTemp Grill Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Spider Grills LLC filed a patent infringement action against Loco Crazy Good Cookers Inc in Georgia’s Middle District, asserting US11852346B2 over the 22.5" SmartTemp Kettle Grill product line. The parties resolved the dispute jointly in 198 days, securing a dismissal with prejudice — permanently closing the courthouse door on these specific claims.
SmartTemp Grill Patent Dispute Ends in Permanent Joint Dismissal
On October 2, 2024, Spider Grills LLC filed suit against Loco Crazy Good Cookers Inc in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, asserting infringement of US11852346B2. The patent-in-suit covers smart temperature-control technology embodied in Spider Grills’ 22.5" SmartTemp Kettle Grill and its cart variant — a consumer outdoor cooking product competing directly in the premium kettle grill segment where Loco Crazy Good Cookers also operates.
The case concluded on April 18, 2025, when both parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice, which Judge Clay D. Land granted. The order specifies that the parties take nothing on their claims and counterclaims, and that each side bears its own fees and costs. The with-prejudice designation means Spider Grills cannot refile the same patent claims against Loco Crazy Good Cookers, and any counterclaims Loco raised are equally extinguished — a mutual and final resolution.
The 198-day timeline from filing to dismissal is consistent with cases that settle or reach commercial resolution before substantive motion practice concludes. The joint nature of the motion, combined with the mutual cost-bearing arrangement, suggests the parties reached a private agreement — possibly a license, cross-license, or product design accommodation — though the terms of any underlying deal remain confidential and are not disclosed in the public court record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 198 days
198 days from filing to dismissal — consistent with pre-trial settlement in grill IP disputes
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars any re-filing of these claims
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 operates as a final judgment on the merits. Spider Grills cannot refile US11852346B2 infringement claims against Loco Crazy Good Cookers based on the same accused products. Because the motion was joint, both parties actively consented — distinguishing this from a unilateral voluntary dismissal and strongly suggesting a negotiated resolution underpins the order.
Permanent bar on re-filingSpider Grills retains the patent but surrenders this enforcement path
US11852346B2 remains valid and enforceable against third parties — the dismissal only extinguishes claims against Loco Crazy Good Cookers. Spider Grills may still assert the patent against other competitors in the kettle grill space. However, the permanent dismissal means it accepted a final resolution rather than pursuing a court-determined damages award or injunction, suggesting the commercial outcome was deemed sufficient.
Patent survives; enforcement against others intactLoco Crazy Good Cookers secures permanent closure on these patent claims
Loco Crazy Good Cookers obtains certainty: Spider Grills cannot revive US11852346B2 infringement claims over the SmartTemp Kettle Grill products in any future proceeding. Any counterclaims Loco filed are also dismissed with prejudice. The mutual cost-bearing clause means no financial penalty was imposed by the court on either side, though any private settlement payments between the parties would not appear in the public record.
Permanent immunity from these specific claimsPrivate resolution leaves market and licensing terms undisclosed
The confidential nature of any underlying agreement is commercially significant for the outdoor cooking equipment sector. Competitors cannot determine whether Loco Crazy Good Cookers secured a license to US11852346B2, agreed to design-around modifications, or paid a lump-sum settlement. Other manufacturers of smart temperature-control grills should treat this patent as actively enforced, given Spider Grills initiated and pursued litigation before reaching a final resolution.
SmartTemp IP remains an active competitive riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SPIDER GRILLS LLC | Company | Outdoor cooking equipment innovator — holder of US11852346B2 (SmartTemp Kettle Grill)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | LOCO CRAZY GOOD COOKERS INC | Company | Loco Crazy Good Cookers Inc — outdoor grill and smoker manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | DAVID K. LUDWIG | Attorney | Counsel for SPIDER GRILLS LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | STEVEN G HILL | Attorney | Counsel for SPIDER GRILLS LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | CLEMENT ASANTE | Attorney | Counsel for LOCO CRAZY GOOD COOKERS INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | JOSEPH C SHARP | Attorney | Counsel for LOCO CRAZY GOOD COOKERS INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | MICHAEL PATRICK DULIN | Attorney | Counsel for LOCO CRAZY GOOD COOKERS INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | PATRICK MUFFO | Attorney | Counsel for LOCO CRAZY GOOD COOKERS INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge CLAY D. LAND | Judge | Georgia Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order’s language — ‘parties shall take nothing on their claims and counterclaims’ — confirms a mutual, clean-slate resolution: no damages, no injunctive relief, and no admission of liability by either side. The with-prejudice designation, entered on joint motion, carries the legal weight of a final judgment, permanently foreclosing US11852346B2 claims against Loco Crazy Good Cookers over the accused SmartTemp Kettle Grill products. The absence of any fee award to either party is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution rather than a clear-cut legal victory.
US11852346B2 — Smart Temperature-Control Kettle Grill Technology
US11852346B2, filed under application number US18/128384, covers smart temperature-control technology as embodied in Spider Grills’ 22.5" SmartTemp Kettle Grill product line. The patent operates in the consumer outdoor cooking space, addressing automated or sensor-driven temperature management in kettle-style grills — a technically differentiated feature in a market segment historically dominated by manual charcoal management.
The commercial significance of this patent lies in the growing premium outdoor cooking segment, where smart-connected and precision-temperature grill products command higher margins and stronger brand differentiation. Spider Grills’ decision to enforce US11852346B2 against a named competitor signals confidence in the patent’s scope and claim coverage. For other manufacturers developing connected or thermally-regulated grill products, this patent represents a meaningful freedom-to-operate risk that warrants proactive analysis.
Should you run an FTO against US11852346B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing smart temperature-control kettle grills — or grills with automated airflow, sensor-driven damper systems, or connected temperature management — should assess their exposure to US11852346B2. Spider Grills has demonstrated enforcement intent through active litigation. R&D teams developing next-generation outdoor cooking products should map their designs against this patent’s claims before committing to tooling or launch timelines.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim landscape of US11852346B2 against your product specifications, flagging overlap risk and identifying design-around opportunities. Eureka surfaces relevant prior art, related family members, and co-pending applications that may extend the protected claim scope — giving your IP team the full picture before a product decision locks in.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11852346B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Disputes in Outdoor Cooking & Smart Grill Technology
Explore comparable patent infringement cases in outdoor cooking and smart temperature-control technology litigated at U.S. district court level.
What this case signals for the outdoor cooking equipment IP landscape
A joint with-prejudice dismissal in 198 days typically reflects a private commercial deal — not an admission of weakness by either side.
US11852346B2 is actively enforced — treat it as a live competitive threat
Spider Grills demonstrated willingness to litigate the SmartTemp patent to at least the pre-trial stage before settling. Any company developing or selling smart temperature-control kettle grills should conduct an FTO analysis against US11852346B2 before bringing products to market. Waiting until litigation notice risks significant legal cost and product disruption.
Joint dismissals with prejudice signal negotiated deals, not concession
When both parties move jointly for a with-prejudice dismissal with each side bearing its own costs, it typically signals a private agreement — often a licensing arrangement or product modification — rather than one side backing down. IP teams should not interpret Loco’s outcome as evidence the patent is weak; the underlying terms remain private.
SPIDER v LOCO — key questions answered
Spider Grills asserted US11852346B2, covering smart temperature-control technology embodied in its 22.5" SmartTemp Kettle Grill and the SmartTemp Kettle Grill with Cart variant. The application number on record is US18/128384.
The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by both parties. Judge Clay D. Land granted the motion, ordering that neither party may refile claims or counterclaims arising from this dispute. The underlying reason for the joint motion is not disclosed in the public record but is consistent with a private settlement or licensing arrangement.
No. A dismissal with prejudice on a joint motion carries no finding on patent validity or infringement. US11852346B2 remains a valid, issued patent and Spider Grills can still assert it against other parties. The dismissal only forecloses claims between Spider Grills and Loco Crazy Good Cookers relating to the accused products.
The court’s order specifies that each party shall bear its own fees and costs. No fee award was entered against either side. This mutual cost-bearing arrangement is typical of jointly negotiated resolutions where neither party is deemed a prevailing party for fee-shifting purposes under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
The accused products identified in the case record are Loco Crazy Good Cookers’ 22.5" SmartTemp Kettle Grill and the 22.5" SmartTemp Kettle Grill with Cart — both products in the consumer outdoor kettle grill category featuring smart temperature-control functionality.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.