TAC Operating Co. & Stormshell v. Protective Enclosures — Settled in 190 Days
TAC Operating Company and Stormshell, LLC filed suit in the Middle District of Florida alleging that Protective Enclosures Company’s TV Shield E-Series infringed design patent USD879751S. The parties reached a settlement in principle within 190 days, prompting the court to stay and administratively close the case.
Design patent dispute over outdoor TV enclosures ends in swift settlement
On 10 August 2023, TAC Operating Company and co-plaintiff Stormshell, LLC filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 6:23-cv-01534) against Protective Enclosures Company, LLC. The complaint centred on alleged infringement of design patent USD879751S, which covers the ornamental appearance of an outdoor TV protective enclosure, by the defendant’s commercially sold TV Shield E-Series product.
The case resolved with notable speed. On 16 February 2024 — just 190 days after filing — the court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Settlement, confirming that a settlement in principle had been reached. The court administratively closed the file and ordered the parties to submit a joint status report by 1 April 2024 confirming finalisation. The specific financial and licensing terms of the settlement remain confidential and are not part of the public record.
The rapid resolution suggests both parties calculated that a negotiated outcome was preferable to the cost and uncertainty of litigating a design patent dispute through claim construction and trial. Design patent cases can turn significantly on the ‘ordinary observer’ test, which introduces subjective risk for both sides. What drove the precise settlement terms — whether a licence, a design-around commitment, or a financial payment — is unknown from public filings.
Filing to settlement in 190 days
190 days — faster than the median for design patent infringement cases at first instance
Case stayed pending settlement finalisation — key terms confidential
Case stayed, not dismissed — an important procedural distinction
The court granted a stay rather than entering a dismissal order. This means the case remains on the docket in administrative closure pending the parties’ confirmation of a finalised agreement. A stay preserves the court’s jurisdiction; if the settlement falls through, either party can move to reopen proceedings. This differs from a voluntary dismissal, which formally terminates the action.
Stay ≠ DismissalSettlement in principle reached — final terms not yet public at closure
The court’s order notes only that a ‘settlement in principle’ had been reached, not a fully executed agreement. The parties were directed to file a status report by 1 April 2024. Whether the settlement was ultimately finalised, and on what terms — licence, design-around, monetary payment, or combination — is not disclosed in the public record. This is typical for commercial IP settlements, where confidentiality is a standard term.
Terms confidentialOrnamental design patents carry unique litigation risk for both parties
Design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: would an ordinary person purchasing the product mistake the accused design for the patented one? This standard is inherently subjective and difficult to predict at trial. For plaintiffs, winning on paper can still mean limited damages if the design is deemed to apply to a minor component. These twin uncertainties often push both sides toward early settlement.
Ordinary observer testJoint plaintiffs suggest coordinated IP enforcement strategy
The case was filed jointly by TAC Operating Company and Stormshell, LLC, suggesting a structured ownership or licensing arrangement around USD879751S. Co-plaintiff structures in design patent suits often indicate that one entity holds the patent while another holds exclusive commercial rights. This kind of coordinated enforcement posture is consistent with an intent to actively police the design across the outdoor TV enclosure market.
Co-plaintiff enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | TAC Operating Company | Company | IP licensing entities in the outdoor TV enclosure space — holders of design patent USD879751SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Protective Enclosures Company, LLC | Company | Protective Enclosures Company, LLC — manufacturer and seller of the TV Shield E-Series outdoor TV enclosureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Nelson Platt | Attorney | Counsel for TAC Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Collin D. Hansen | Attorney | Counsel for TAC Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Howard S. Marks | Attorney | Counsel for Protective Enclosures Company, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Mark Corbett | Attorney | Counsel for Protective Enclosures Company, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sheena A. Thakrar | Attorney | Counsel for Protective Enclosures Company, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Florida Middle District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order reflects a purely procedural posture: no merits determination was made. The grant of the stay on the basis of a ‘settlement in principle’ means the court accepted the parties’ representation that a deal was effectively done, while retaining jurisdiction pending formal confirmation. The administrative closure is not a judgment and does not bind either party on the underlying IP validity or infringement questions — those issues were never adjudicated.
USD879751S — Ornamental Design for an Outdoor TV Protective Enclosure
Design patent USD879751S (application number US29/693090) protects the ornamental appearance — the visual design — of an outdoor television protective enclosure. Unlike utility patents, design patents claim the way a product looks, not how it functions. Protection is defined entirely by the patent’s drawings, meaning any product whose overall visual impression would deceive an ordinary observer into thinking it was the patented design may infringe. The application number suggests filing in the 2019–2020 timeframe, placing it squarely in the growing consumer outdoor entertainment category.
Outdoor TV enclosures have become a competitive product segment as weatherproof display installations grow in residential and commercial settings. A design patent in this space can function as a powerful competitive moat: it does not prevent competitors from making functional enclosures, but it can block close visual imitations. For enclosure manufacturers, the ornamental design of a product — its edges, proportions, venting arrangement, and panel aesthetics — can be independently patentable and independently enforceable, separate from any utility claims.
Should your outdoor TV enclosure product be cleared against USD879751S?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing outdoor TV enclosures — particularly rectangular weatherproof housings in the consumer or commercial AV market — should assess freedom to operate against USD879751S. Design patents are often underweighted in FTO analyses that focus on utility patents, but this case demonstrates they are actively enforced. The ordinary observer test means even a product that differs in materials or internal components may still infringe if its visual appearance is substantially similar.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD879751S against your product’s design figures, identify the broadest and narrowest claim interpretations from the drawings, and flag similar design patents in the outdoor AV enclosure category. Ongoing claim monitoring through Eureka ensures you receive alerts if related continuation or divisional design applications are filed by the same applicant, enabling proactive risk management before a product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0879751S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in the consumer electronics enclosure space
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 outdoor display enclosure IP landscape
A swift settlement in a design patent dispute over outdoor TV enclosures points to a competitive market where ornamental differentiation is actively enforced.
Design patent holders in the AV enclosure space are actively enforcing rights
This case confirms that design patents covering outdoor AV enclosure aesthetics are being used offensively. Manufacturers and retailers in the outdoor TV and weatherproof display category should treat enclosure design as a live IP risk area, not just a utility patent concern. A single design patent can block a competing product’s entire commercial appearance.
Early settlement at 190 days suggests strong plaintiff negotiating leverage
Cases that settle this quickly — before significant discovery or claim construction — typically suggest either clear infringement exposure or a defendant weighing litigation cost against commercial impact. For competitors in this space, the speed of resolution is itself a signal that the asserted patent was not easily designed around without impacting the product’s market appeal.
TAC v Protective — key questions answered
It is a design patent infringement action filed on 10 August 2023 in the Middle District of Florida. Plaintiffs TAC Operating Company and Stormshell, LLC alleged that Protective Enclosures Company’s TV Shield E-Series outdoor TV enclosure infringed design patent USD879751S. The case was stayed and administratively closed on 16 February 2024 after the parties reported reaching a settlement in principle.
USD879751S protects the ornamental appearance — the visual design — of an outdoor television protective enclosure, filed under application number US29/693090. The plaintiffs alleged that the TV Shield E-Series product by Protective Enclosures Company was sufficiently similar in appearance to the patented design that an ordinary observer would mistake one for the other, meeting the standard for design patent infringement under U.S. law.
A stay differs from a dismissal. When a court stays a case, it pauses proceedings without terminating the action, preserving the court’s jurisdiction. Here, the stay was granted because a settlement in principle had been reached and the parties needed time to finalise the agreement. If the settlement had collapsed, either party could have moved to reopen the case. A dismissal — particularly with prejudice — would have permanently ended the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims.
Both entities are listed as plaintiffs, which typically reflects a structured patent ownership or licensing arrangement. One entity commonly holds title to the patent while the other holds an exclusive commercial licence — both may need to be named as plaintiffs to establish standing. This co-plaintiff structure is also consistent with an organised IP enforcement programme targeting competitors in the outdoor TV enclosure market.
The case resolved in 190 days from filing to administrative closure, which is notably fast for first-instance patent litigation in a U.S. district court. Rapid pre-trial settlements often indicate that the defendant assessed clear infringement exposure or that the litigation cost outweighed the commercial value of defending the product’s current design. It may also suggest the parties had pre-litigation communications that accelerated the path to resolution.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.