Turf Design v. Acoufelt: Three-Patent Ceiling System Dispute Settled in 343 Days
Turf Design, Inc. sued Acoufelt, LLC in Michigan’s Eastern District over three patents covering ceiling products and systems, targeting Acoufelt’s SoftenUp product line. The parties reached a confidential settlement and stipulated to dismissal with prejudice — with no costs or attorneys’ fees awarded to either side.
Three-patent ceiling system dispute ends in confidential settlement
On 20 March 2024, Turf Design, Inc. filed an infringement action against Acoufelt, LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Case No. 2:24-cv-10719). Turf Design asserted three US patents — US11199004B2, US11834827B2, and US11933045B2 — all directed to ceiling products and systems. The accused product was Acoufelt’s SoftenUp ceiling panel line, a commercial acoustic ceiling solution marketed directly to architects and interior designers.
The case closed on 26 February 2025 after 343 days, when the parties filed a stipulation confirming a fully confidential settlement. The court issued an order dismissing the action with prejudice and expressly declining to award costs or attorneys’ fees to either party. A dismissal with prejudice extinguishes the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims — meaning Turf Design cannot bring these specific infringement allegations again in any court.
The 343-day timeline suggests the parties negotiated relatively efficiently for a multi-patent dispute, possibly avoiding the cost of claim construction proceedings or expert discovery. The confidential nature of the settlement means the financial terms, any licensing arrangement, and product design-around commitments remain unknown from the public record. The no-costs order is consistent with a negotiated outcome rather than a contested litigation victory.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 343 days
343 days to resolution — faster than the median patent case in the Eastern District of Michigan
Dismissed with prejudice: what the confidential settlement means for both parties
Dismissed with prejudice means these claims are permanently closed
A dismissal with prejudice following settlement is the most final form of voluntary resolution in US federal litigation. Turf Design permanently relinquishes the right to reassert infringement of these three patents against Acoufelt on the same conduct. The court retains jurisdiction only to enforce any settlement agreement if a dispute arises. No merits ruling was issued — the patents’ validity and scope were never adjudicated.
Permanent bar on re-filingTurf Design secures finality — likely on negotiated commercial terms
By settling and agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Turf Design obtained whatever commercial consideration was negotiated privately — which may include licensing royalties, a lump-sum payment, or a design-around commitment from Acoufelt. The no-costs order suggests neither party extracted a litigation win. Turf Design retains ownership of all three patents and may assert them against other parties in future proceedings.
Patents remain enforceableAcoufelt resolves risk without a validity ruling — but at undisclosed cost
Acoufelt avoided a potentially adverse infringement or validity ruling by settling before claim construction. The confidential settlement likely includes some form of consideration or product commitment. Crucially, the patents were never found invalid — meaning the SoftenUp product may remain under commercial risk if its design has not changed. Acoufelt retains freedom to contest validity in future proceedings if the relationship breaks down.
No invalidity finding — risk persistsAcoustic ceiling market faces live patent risk across three patent families
All three asserted patents remain active and enforceable. Competitors producing suspended ceiling panels or acoustic felt systems similar to the SoftenUp product should note that Turf Design has demonstrated willingness to enforce its portfolio through litigation. The multi-patent assertion across related application numbers (US16/566444, US17/534051, US18/382283) suggests a continuation strategy designed to extend coverage across product generations.
Continuation portfolio riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Turf Design, Inc. | Company | Ceiling and turf systems innovator — holder of US11199004B2, US11834827B2, and US11933045B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Acoufelt, LLC | Company | Acoustic ceiling and felt product manufacturer — maker of the SoftenUp ceiling panel systemSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John R. Gibson | Attorney | Counsel for Turf Design, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Gaudet | Attorney | Counsel for Turf Design, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew J. Bredeweg | Attorney | Counsel for Turf Design, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen E. Glazek | Attorney | Counsel for Turf Design, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tyler Robert Marandola | Attorney | Counsel for Turf Design, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Turf Design, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Duane Morris LLP | Law Firm | Representing Turf Design, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | H. Jonathan Redway | Attorney | Counsel for Acoufelt, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Acoufelt, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Michigan Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a fully consensual resolution: the parties stipulated to dismissal, and the court confirmed the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with no costs or fees to either side. This phrasing confirms the dismissal carries full preclusive effect — Turf Design cannot relitigate these infringement allegations against Acoufelt. Notably, the order makes no finding on patent validity, claim scope, or infringement, leaving all three patents legally intact and enforceable against third parties.
US11199004B2, US11834827B2 & US11933045B2 — acoustic ceiling panel systems
The three asserted patents — US11199004B2, US11834827B2, and US11933045B2 — cover ceiling products and systems, with application numbers suggesting a continuation family originating from US16/566444 and progressing through US17/534051 and US18/382283. This sequential filing pattern is consistent with iterative claim refinement designed to track evolving product designs in the commercial ceiling panel market. The patents sit within the architectural acoustics and interior systems technology domain.
The continuation structure across three patents is strategically significant: it allows a patent holder to pursue progressively tailored claim sets as competitor products evolve. For the acoustic felt ceiling sector — where products like Acoufelt’s SoftenUp compete on design and acoustic performance — the existence of three co-pending or sequentially issued patents from a single originating application materially raises the cost and complexity of any design-around. Competitors should treat this family as a portfolio risk, not a single-patent hurdle.
Should you run an FTO against US11199004B2 and its siblings?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing suspended acoustic ceiling panels — particularly felt-based or fiber-based systems marketed under architectural or commercial interior branding — should treat this three-patent family as a priority FTO target. Turf Design has demonstrated active enforcement intent, and all three patents remain in force with no invalidity finding on record. The SoftenUp product’s involvement signals that decorative acoustic ceiling frames and panel systems are within the claimed scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the independent and dependent claims of all three patents simultaneously, flag overlapping continuation claims, and surface prior art that could support an IPR challenge if licensing discussions become necessary. For product teams planning new ceiling panel SKUs or entering the commercial interior fit-out market, an automated FTO report against this patent family should be a pre-launch checkpoint.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11199004B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar acoustic ceiling and architectural panel patent cases
Browse patent infringement actions in the Eastern District of Michigan and federal courts involving acoustic ceiling systems, felt panels, and suspended ceiling technology.
What this case signals for the acoustic ceiling IP landscape
A three-patent enforcement action resolved in under a year — with no costs awarded — carries clear signals for competitors in the acoustic ceiling and felt panel sector.
Turf Design’s continuation strategy creates layered patent risk
The three asserted patents share a common technology lineage across application numbers US16/566444, US17/534051, and US18/382283. This continuation filing pattern is consistent with a deliberate strategy to create overlapping claims that cover incremental product variations. Competitors should map their product features against all three patent families, not just the earliest-filed application.
Early settlement without a costs order typically signals mutual compromise
The court’s explicit no-costs-to-either-party order, combined with a pre-claim-construction settlement, is consistent with a negotiated outcome where neither side achieved a dominant litigation position. This pattern often indicates a cross-license, running royalty, or one-time payment — though the precise terms are shielded from public disclosure by the confidentiality clause.
Turf v Acoufelt — key questions answered
Turf Design, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Acoufelt, LLC in the Eastern District of Michigan on 20 March 2024, asserting three patents covering ceiling products and systems against Acoufelt’s SoftenUp product. The case settled confidentially and was dismissed with prejudice on 26 February 2025, with no costs or attorneys’ fees awarded to either party.
Turf Design asserted three US patents: US11199004B2 (application US16/566444), US11834827B2 (application US17/534051), and US11933045B2 (application US18/382283). All three cover ceiling products and systems and appear to form a continuation patent family, suggesting overlapping but progressively refined claim coverage.
Dismissed with prejudice means Turf Design permanently relinquishes the right to reassert the same infringement claims against Acoufelt for the same accused conduct. The dismissal followed a confidential settlement, so no merits ruling on validity or infringement was issued. The three patents remain valid and enforceable against other parties.
The accused product was Acoufelt’s SoftenUp ceiling system, a commercial acoustic ceiling panel product. The SoftenUp line is marketed for architectural interior applications. No court finding was made as to whether the product actually infringed the asserted patents — the case resolved by settlement before any such determination.
The settlement binds only Turf Design and Acoufelt. All three asserted patents remain active and enforceable, and Turf Design retains full rights to assert them against other manufacturers of acoustic ceiling systems. Third parties producing similar suspended ceiling or felt panel products should conduct FTO analysis against US11199004B2, US11834827B2, and US11933045B2 independently.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.