Sqip, LLC v. Ultra Stones, LLC: Settlement Reached in Quartz Surface Patent Dispute

Introduction

A patent infringement dispute over engineered natural quartz surfaces concluded with a voluntary dismissal with prejudice after just 116 days of litigation. In *Sqip, LLC v. Ultra Stones, LLC* (Case No. 2:24-cv-08401), filed in the Eastern District of New York, plaintiff Sqip LLC alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. US10376912B2 — a patent covering surface fabrication technology — against a line of accused quartz products distributed under recognized stone brand names.

The case closed on April 1, 2025, following a mutual settlement agreement under which both parties agreed to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. While the financial terms remain undisclosed, the rapid resolution signals a calculated strategic retreat from protracted litigation — a pattern increasingly common in surface materials patent disputes.

For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in the engineered stone and surface materials sector, this case offers meaningful procedural lessons, risk signals, and competitive intelligence worth unpacking.

Case Overview

The Parties

Patents at Issue

This case involved U.S. Patent No. US10376912B2, covering processes or design characteristics related to engineered quartz surfaces. The asserted claims likely touch on visual patterning, surface composition methodology, or manufacturing process characteristics applicable across multiple product SKUs.

• • US10376912B2 — Natural quartz surface fabrication and design

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The action was filed on December 6, 2024, in the Eastern District of New York — a district with an established docket for complex commercial and IP matters. The EDNY’s Local Patent Rules and procedural framework provide structured timelines for claim construction and early case management, which may have accelerated the parties’ settlement calculus.

Notably, this case resolved at the first-instance (district court) level without progressing to claim construction hearings, summary judgment motions, or trial. The 116-day lifespan — under four months — places this firmly in the category of early-stage settlements, where litigation costs and the risk of adverse claim construction rulings often incentivize resolution before significant procedural milestones.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case terminated via voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), effectuated by stipulation of both parties. Critically, each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting neither side extracted a financially dominant settlement. No damages award, royalty figure, or injunctive relief was publicly disclosed.

Key Legal Issues

Given the early dismissal, no formal claim construction order, validity ruling, or infringement finding was issued by the court. However, several strategic dynamics likely shaped the outcome, including claim scope uncertainty, IPR risk exposure for the defendant, and commercial sensitivity surrounding recognizable brand names (MSI, Hirsch).