Triteq Lock v. Minus Forty Technologies: Cooler Lock Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Triteq Lock & Security, LLC filed suit against Minus Forty Technologies Corp. and related entities in N.D. Illinois, asserting two patents covering cooler lock systems. After 676 days of litigation, Judge LaShonda A. Hunt closed the case with a dismissal with prejudice — a permanent bar on re-filing the same claims.
Cooler Lock IP Battle Ends Permanently in N.D. Illinois
Triteq Lock & Security, LLC, a Chicago-area security technology company, filed this patent infringement action on March 2, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Minus Forty Technologies Corp., Minus Forty QBD Corp., and Due North — three entities associated with the commercial refrigeration and cooler market. Triteq asserted two patents, US10612833B2 and US11493262B2, both directed to cooler lock technology, alleging that defendants’ products infringed those rights.
The case closed on January 6, 2025, with a dismissal with prejudice — the most final form of voluntary or contested dismissal available at the district court level. A dismissal with prejudice extinguishes the plaintiff’s asserted claims on the merits, meaning Triteq cannot re-file the same infringement claims against the same defendants in any federal court. The public record does not disclose whether this dismissal followed a settlement, a stipulation of the parties, or a court-ordered ruling.
The 676-day duration — nearly two years — suggests the case progressed through at least some substantive phases, potentially including claim construction or discovery, before reaching its terminal disposition. The engagement of nine defence counsel from Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP and Volpe Koenig is consistent with a well-resourced defence effort. What specifically drove the dismissal with prejudice — whether a licensing resolution, technical invalidity arguments, or litigation economics — remains undisclosed on the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 676 days
676 days — above the median for N.D. Illinois patent cases closed before trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice is a final, claim-extinguishing event
A dismissal with prejudice under federal procedural rules operates as an adjudication on the merits. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice — which preserves the plaintiff’s ability to refile — this disposition permanently bars Triteq from asserting US10612833B2 and US11493262B2 against these defendants on the same facts. The court’s closure is legally equivalent to a final judgment against the plaintiff on those claims.
Permanent claim barTriteq’s claims are permanently extinguished against these defendants
Triteq Lock & Security loses its ability to pursue infringement claims against Minus Forty Technologies, Minus Forty QBD, and Due North on these two patents arising from the same accused products and conduct. Whether this reflects a negotiated resolution — such as a licence, covenant not to sue, or payment — or a litigation-driven concession is not disclosed in the public record. Triteq retains the patents and may enforce them against unrelated third parties.
Claims ended, patents surviveMinus Forty entities receive permanent protection from these specific claims
The dismissal with prejudice gives Minus Forty Technologies, Minus Forty QBD, and Due North a complete defence against any re-assertion of the same cooler lock patent claims by Triteq. This is effectively the strongest outcome short of a formal invalidity ruling, as it creates res judicata protection on these claims. The defendants’ nine-counsel defence team at Katten Muchin and Volpe Koenig suggests a determined and well-funded response to the litigation.
Res judicata protection grantedCooler lock IP landscape: patents remain valid but enforcement path narrowed
US10612833B2 and US11493262B2 remain in force and could be asserted against other market participants. However, the dismissal with prejudice signals that enforcement against at least this cluster of commercial refrigeration defendants has concluded. Competitors in the cooler lock and commercial refrigeration sector should monitor whether Triteq pursues further enforcement actions, and consider FTO analysis against both asserted patents.
Patents still active — FTO advisedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Triteq Lock & Security, LLC | Company | Cooler lock security technology company — holder of US10612833B2 and US11493262B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Minus Forty Technologies Corp. | Company | Commercial refrigeration and cooler product manufacturer; three related entities namedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Minus Forty QBD, Corp. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Due North | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dave R. Gunter | Attorney | Counsel for Triteq Lock & Security, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan T. Suder | Attorney | Counsel for Triteq Lock & Security, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard A. Wojcio , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Triteq Lock & Security, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas More Leinenweber | Attorney | Counsel for Triteq Lock & Security, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Friedman Suder & Cooke PC | Law Firm | Representing Triteq Lock & Security, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Leinenweber Baroni & Daffada, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Triteq Lock & Security, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anthony Pettes | Attorney | Counsel for Minus Forty Technologies Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian J. Sodikoff | Attorney | Counsel for Minus Forty Technologies Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Charles L. Perry | Attorney | Counsel for Minus Forty Technologies Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher B. Ferenc | Attorney | Counsel for Minus Forty Technologies Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lauren Eiten | Attorney | Counsel for Minus Forty Technologies Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew H. Hartzler | Attorney | Counsel for Minus Forty Technologies Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rachel June Schaub | Attorney | Counsel for Minus Forty Technologies Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sean S. Wooden | Attorney | Counsel for Minus Forty Technologies Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Terence P. Ross | Attorney | Counsel for Minus Forty Technologies Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Minus Forty Technologies Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Volpe Koenig | Law Firm | Representing Minus Forty Technologies Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge LaShonda A. Hunt | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict record states: ‘This case is dismissed with prejudice.’ The phrasing is unqualified and absolute — there are no stated conditions, carve-outs, or partial reservations of rights. Under federal law, this operates as a final judgment on the merits for the asserted claims. For Triteq, it forecloses any identical claim against these defendants. For Minus Forty and its affiliates, it provides durable res judicata protection. The absence of any accompanying fee award suggests neither party sought or obtained an exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US10612833B2 & US11493262B2 — Cooler Lock Security Technology
US10612833B2 (Application No. US15/852709) and US11493262B2 (Application No. US17/699681) are both assigned to Triteq Lock & Security, LLC and directed to locking technology for commercial cooler and refrigeration units. These patents cover the mechanisms by which coolers — typically found in retail, vending, and food service environments — are secured, controlled, and potentially monitored. The later application number of US11493262B2 suggests a continuation or follow-on filing, potentially broadening or refining the claims of the original patent family.
Cooler lock patents occupy a niche but commercially significant position at the intersection of physical security and cold-chain retail infrastructure. With the proliferation of smart vending, micro-market, and connected refrigeration units, IP in this space is becoming more strategically valuable. Triteq’s decision to assert both patents simultaneously — and to name three related Minus Forty entities — suggests a deliberate enforcement strategy targeting a key competitor’s product line rather than opportunistic litigation.
Should your team run an FTO against US10612833B2 and US11493262B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing cooler lock systems, smart refrigeration access controls, or related hardware for retail or vending applications should treat these two patents as active enforcement risk. The dismissal with prejudice in this case does not diminish the patents’ scope or validity — Triteq retains full enforcement rights against third parties. Product teams developing electronic or mechanical locking solutions for commercial coolers should conduct a thorough freedom-to-operate analysis before launch or market expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10612833B2 and US11493262B2 against your specific product architecture, flag design-around opportunities, and surface the broader Triteq patent portfolio to identify additional risk vectors. Eureka’s litigation monitoring layer also tracks new enforcement actions, so your IP team receives early warning if Triteq files against competitors in your market segment.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10612833B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Cooler Lock & Commercial Refrigeration Patent Cases
Explore related patent infringement actions involving cooler lock, commercial refrigeration access, and mechanical security technology litigated in N.D. Illinois and comparable district courts.
What this case signals for the cooler lock and security IP landscape
A two-year infringement action ending with prejudice raises questions about enforcement economics and patent strength in the commercial refrigeration sector.
Dismissal with prejudice often signals a negotiated exit, not a merits defeat
When a plaintiff files and pursues litigation for nearly two years before accepting a dismissal with prejudice, the outcome frequently reflects a commercial resolution — licence, royalty, or covenant — rather than an admission that the patents are weak. IP teams tracking Triteq’s enforcement posture should not assume the patents are invalid based on this outcome alone.
Both asserted patents remain live enforcement tools against other parties
US10612833B2 and US11493262B2 are not invalidated by this dismissal. Any company making, using, or selling cooler lock products in the U.S. market remains exposed to potential infringement claims from Triteq. A proactive FTO search against these two patents is advisable for any player entering or expanding in this product category.
Triteq v Minus — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. The court record for Case No. 1:23-cv-01300 in N.D. Illinois states ‘This case is dismissed with prejudice,’ closing on January 6, 2025. This permanently bars Triteq from re-asserting the same claims against the named defendants.
Triteq Lock & Security, LLC asserted two patents: US10612833B2 (Application No. US15/852709) and US11493262B2 (Application No. US17/699681). Both patents are directed to cooler lock technology and remained in force following the dismissal.
A dismissal with prejudice provides Minus Forty Technologies, Minus Forty QBD Corp., and Due North with res judicata protection against re-assertion of the same cooler lock patent claims by Triteq. It is legally equivalent to a final judgment on the merits for the asserted claims, offering the defendants durable protection without requiring a formal invalidity ruling.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice extinguishes claims only against the named defendants in this action. Triteq’s two cooler lock patents remain valid and enforceable against unrelated third parties. Companies making or selling cooler lock products should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against both patents.
The case ran for 676 days, from filing on March 2, 2023 to closure on January 6, 2025. This duration — nearly two years — suggests the litigation progressed through substantive procedural phases before the parties or the court reached a terminal disposition.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.