Upstream Holdings v. M and M Machinery — Federal Circuit Affirms (Case 24-1924)
Upstream Holdings, LLC and affiliated plaintiffs appealed a patent infringement judgment concerning US10519668B1 and the accused K1 and K2 machines. A Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Moore, Judge Lourie, and Judge Reyna issued a per curiam affirmance under Rule 36, closing the appeal after 676 days.
Federal Circuit closes K1/K2 machine patent dispute with Rule 36 affirmance
The appeal, docketed as Case No. 24-1924, was filed on 7 June 2024 before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The plaintiffs — Upstream Holdings, LLC, alongside Adella Bachman, Andrew Bachman, Eric Bachman, James E. Bachman, Contractor Metals, LLC, and Midway Metals LLC — asserted infringement of US10519668B1 in connection with the accused K1 and K2 machines. The defendants included M and M Machinery, Brek Leasing, LLC, Carlos Lopez, Charles Garcia, Eric J. Mortenson, Martin Lopez Sr., Steven C. Brekunitch, and Does 1–7.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Appeal Dismissed'; the docket order states a per curiam affirmance issued by Chief Judge Moore, Judge Lourie, and Judge Reyna under Federal Circuit Rule 36, which allows the court to affirm without a written opinion when a separate opinion would have no precedential value. The appeal closed on 14 April 2026.
The 676-day duration from filing to closure is notable for an appeal resolved without a written opinion. What drove the underlying dispute, the terms of any prior district court judgment, and any financial or injunctive relief are not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 676 days
676 days — above the median Federal Circuit appeal duration
US10519668B1 — patented machinery technology for the K1 and K2 machines
Any company designing, manufacturing, or commercialising machinery in the category addressed by the K1 and K2 machines should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US10519668B1. The patent has now cleared Federal Circuit review, and the plaintiff group — comprising multiple related entities — has demonstrated willingness to pursue multi-defendant litigation through to appeal. The absence of a written opinion means no claim-narrowing analysis exists in the public record that competitors can rely on.
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit issued its ruling per curiam under Rule 36, a procedural mechanism that permits affirmance without a written opinion where the panel determines a separate opinion would have no precedential value. The order confirms that Chief Judge Moore, Judge Lourie, and Judge Reyna found no reversible error in the proceedings below. Because no written opinion accompanied the affirmance, the specific legal and factual bases for the panel's conclusion are not set out in the public record.
Federal Circuit affirms: what the Rule 36 ruling means for both parties
What a Rule 36 per curiam affirmance means
Federal Circuit Rule 36 permits the court to enter judgment of affirmance without a written opinion where, in its judgment, a separate opinion would have no precedential value. An affirmance under Rule 36 means the panel found no reversible error in the decision below — the lower court's ruling stands in full. It does not generate binding legal precedent on the substantive patent questions, but it conclusively ends the appeal.
No reversible error foundUpstream Holdings: patent position survives appellate challenge
The Federal Circuit's affirmance means the outcome below — adverse to the defendants at whatever posture it was in — is sustained. For Upstream Holdings and the co-plaintiffs, US10519668B1 retains whatever enforceability status the lower court recognised. The appellate avenue has been exhausted at this level, reducing uncertainty for the patent holder regarding this specific defendant group and the K1 and K2 machines.
Enforceability sustainedM and M Machinery: appellate options exhausted at Federal Circuit level
For M and M Machinery and co-defendants, the affirmance closes the Federal Circuit avenue of challenge. Further appellate options would require a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court — a high bar, and particularly so for a Rule 36 disposition lacking a written opinion. Any obligations imposed by the lower court's judgment remain in effect. The specific terms of those obligations are not disclosed in the available record.
Federal Circuit avenue closedRule 36 affirmance: limited precedent, real enforcement risk
Because the affirmance issued without a written opinion, it creates no binding precedent on the scope or validity of US10519668B1 for third parties. However, the patent's enforceability against the K1 and K2 machine category is practically strengthened. Companies operating in adjacent machinery sectors should note that the patent survived a full appellate review cycle, suggesting the claims were not vulnerable to the arguments raised in this appeal.
No precedent; enforcement strengthenedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | UPSTREAM HOLDINGS, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | ADELLA BACHMAN | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | ANDREW BACHMAN | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | CONTRACTOR METALS, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | ERIC BACHMAN | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | MIDWAY METALS LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | James E. Bachman | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | M AND M MACHINERY | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | BREK LEASING, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | CARLOS LOPEZ | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | CHARLES GARCIA | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | DOES, 1-7 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | ERIC J. MORTENSON | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | MARTIN LOPEZ, SR. | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | STEVEN C. BREKUNITCH | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Edward Bachman | Attorney | Counsel for UPSTREAM HOLDINGS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Offices of Natalie A Panossia-Bassler | Law Firm | Representing UPSTREAM HOLDINGS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen Vegh. | Attorney | Counsel for M AND M MACHINERYSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Vegh IP Legal | Law Firm | Representing M AND M MACHINERYSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the machinery patent space — US10519668B1
Forward-looking patent intelligence signals derived from the Upstream Holdings v. M and M Machinery appeal and the US10519668B1 patent family.
Upstream Holdings & Bachman entity patent filing activity
Upstream Holdings, LLC operates alongside Contractor Metals, LLC, Midway Metals LLC, and multiple Bachman family members — a structure that may indicate a coordinated patent assertion or licensing programme. Mapping the full patent portfolio held across these entities could reveal additional patents in the machinery or metal-fabrication domain that have not yet been asserted.
Portfolio watch: Upstream HoldingsFiling trends around K1/K2 machinery technology
US10519668B1 (application US15/838102) sits within a specific machinery technology domain linked to the K1 and K2 machines. Tracking forward citation activity and continuation filings in this technology class can surface whether competitors are actively designing around or building on the underlying technical concepts, signalling where R&D investment is converging.
Citation & continuation trendsM and M Machinery & co-defendants: patent defensive capability
M and M Machinery, Brek Leasing, LLC, and individual co-defendants appear to have limited published patent portfolios based on the available record. Assessing their patent position — or the absence of one — helps competitors and potential partners understand the defensive IP landscape among machinery operators in this segment and identify consolidation or licensing opportunities.
Defendant portfolio gap analysisAdjacent innovation opportunities near US10519668B1 claims
With US10519668B1 now confirmed at the Federal Circuit level, the claims represent a protected zone that competitors must design around. Analysing the white space immediately adjacent to the patent's claim boundaries — using prior art landscape mapping and IPC class analysis — can identify unprotected technical approaches in the K1/K2 machinery category that remain available for R&D investment.
Design-around white spaceSimilar Federal Circuit patent infringement appeals in the machinery sector
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving machinery patents and Rule 36 affirmances in comparable infringement disputes, with multi-party plaintiff structures.
What this case signals for the machinery patent IP landscape
A Rule 36 affirmance at the Federal Circuit signals claim durability — even without a written opinion, the result carries real enforcement weight.
Rule 36 outcomes signal claim robustness without creating new precedent
A per curiam Rule 36 affirmance means the panel saw no reversible error worth addressing in writing. For competitors and freedom-to-operate analysts, this signals that the arguments levelled against US10519668B1 in this appeal did not succeed — strengthening the practical enforceability posture of the patent even in the absence of a published opinion.
Multi-party plaintiff structure suggests coordinated IP enforcement strategy
The plaintiff side comprises Upstream Holdings, LLC, multiple Bachman family members, Contractor Metals, LLC, and Midway Metals LLC — a structure consistent with an organised patent assertion effort across related entities. Companies in the K1/K2 machinery segment should monitor this network's broader patent activity and filing patterns around US10519668B1.
UPSTREAM v M — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a per curiam affirmance under Rule 36 in Case No. 24-1924. Chief Judge Moore, Judge Lourie, and Judge Reyna affirmed the decision below without a written opinion, finding no reversible error. The appeal closed on 14 April 2026, 676 days after it was filed.
A Rule 36 affirmance means the Federal Circuit found no reversible error in the lower court's decision, and the ruling stands. Because no written opinion is issued, it creates no binding precedent on claim construction or validity for third parties. However, it confirms that the patent and any lower court findings survived appellate scrutiny, which practically strengthens the patent holder's enforcement position.
The sole patent asserted in Case No. 24-1924 is US10519668B1, filed under application number US15/838102. The patent relates to the technology embodied in the accused K1 and K2 machines. Upstream Holdings, LLC, alongside affiliated entities including Contractor Metals, LLC and Midway Metals LLC, were the asserting parties.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Appeal Dismissed'; the docket order states that the Federal Circuit affirmed per curiam under Rule 36. These are the two characterisations as they appear in the available record. The specific terms are not further explained in the available public record — the reader should consult the docket directly to reconcile them.
The affirmance means US10519668B1 has cleared a full Federal Circuit review cycle. Competitors manufacturing or selling machinery in the K1 and K2 category should treat the patent's enforceability as practically confirmed at the appellate level. No written claim-narrowing analysis exists in the public record that third parties can rely on, making a freedom-to-operate review against the patent's claims advisable before entering this product segment.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.