Van-Packer & Jeremias v. Dura Systems Barriers: Federal Circuit Affirms
Van-Packer Co. and Jeremias Inc. brought a patent infringement action against Dura Systems Barriers Inc. over grease duct systems protected by two patents. The Federal Circuit issued a per curiam affirmance under Rule 36 after 456 days, leaving the lower court’s decision undisturbed across both asserted patents.
Federal Circuit summarily affirms grease duct patent infringement ruling
Van-Packer Co. and Jeremias Inc., joint plaintiffs in a grease duct patent infringement action, appealed or defended a lower court decision against Dura Systems Barriers Inc. The dispute centres on two U.S. patents — US10024569 and US9976768 — covering grease duct system technology, specifically commercialised as the DWGD-RZ and GRZ Grease Duct Systems. The appeal was filed on 6 March 2024 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the District of Columbia.
The Federal Circuit closed the case on 5 June 2025 with a per curiam affirmance under Federal Circuit Rule 36, the court’s mechanism for issuing judgment without a written opinion when it finds the lower tribunal committed no reversible error. While the Basis of Termination is recorded as ‘Appeal Dismissed,’ the operative judicial act is an affirmance on the merits — meaning the lower court’s findings on infringement and validity of both patents survive intact.
A 456-day appellate duration before a Rule 36 affirmance suggests the panel considered the record with some care before determining no opinion was warranted. What remains unknown from the public record is the specific basis of the lower court’s ruling — including whether claim construction, infringement findings, or validity determinations were the primary contested issues — and the financial terms of any accompanying remedy.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 456 days
456 days — above the median for Federal Circuit patent appeals, suggesting substantive review before summary affirmance
Federal Circuit affirms: what the Rule 36 ruling means for both parties
Rule 36 affirmance: no reversible error found
A Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmance is a summary judgment confirming the lower court’s decision without a written opinion. It signals that the three-judge panel — Chief Judge Moore, Circuit Judge Prost, and District Judge Hall — found no reversible legal error in the proceedings below. It carries full precedential weight as an affirmance but provides no elaboration of legal reasoning, limiting its use as persuasive authority in future disputes.
Per curiam — no written opinionPatents survive: enforceability of both grease duct patents confirmed
For Van-Packer Co. and Jeremias Inc., the affirmance preserves whatever relief the lower court awarded and confirms the enforceability of US10024569 and US9976768 against Dura Systems Barriers’ DWGD-RZ and GRZ product lines. Competitors and licensees in the commercial grease duct sector should treat both patents as judicially tested. The plaintiffs’ IP position in this technology area is materially strengthened by having withstood appellate scrutiny.
Patents judicially tested and upheldDura Systems’ appellate path is exhausted at the Federal Circuit
Dura Systems Barriers has consumed its Federal Circuit appeal. Further challenge would require a petition for rehearing en banc — statistically unlikely given a Rule 36 affirmance — or a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. Separately, Dura could pursue inter partes review at the USPTO to challenge patent validity, though the prior adjudication may complicate estoppel arguments depending on the issues litigated below.
Appeal rights largely exhaustedStrengthened IP position raises the bar for grease duct competitors
With both patents surviving Federal Circuit review, Van-Packer and Jeremias hold a stronger enforcement position across the commercial grease duct market. Competing manufacturers of similar duct systems — particularly those with products bearing functional or structural similarities to the DWGD-RZ or GRZ systems — face elevated infringement risk. Design-around analysis against US10024569 and US9976768 is now a commercial imperative for any company active in this product category.
Higher infringement risk for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Van-Packer, Co. | Company | Grease duct system manufacturers — joint holders of US10024569 and US9976768Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Jeremias, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dura Systems Barriers, Inc. | Company | Dura Systems Barriers Inc. — manufacturer of commercial grease duct barrier productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Courtney Neufeld | Attorney | Counsel for Van-Packer, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | George C. Summerfield | Attorney | Counsel for Van-Packer, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathan J. Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Van-Packer, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | K&L Gates, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Van-Packer, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Nelson Platt | Attorney | Counsel for Dura Systems Barriers, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chad Edward Nydegger | Attorney | Counsel for Dura Systems Barriers, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan C. Morris | Attorney | Counsel for Dura Systems Barriers, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Workman Nydegger | Law Firm | Representing Dura Systems Barriers, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The per curiam order — ‘AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36’ — is the Federal Circuit’s most concise form of merits disposition. Rule 36 is invoked when the panel determines the lower tribunal’s judgment is correct and no new legal point requires elaboration. Applied here across an infringement action involving two patents, it confirms that no error in claim construction, infringement analysis, or any other dispositive issue warranted reversal. The appellate standard of review for claim construction is de novo, meaning the panel independently assessed legal interpretations before issuing this affirmance — making the outcome particularly meaningful for the patent holders.
US10024569 & US9976768 — Commercial Grease Duct System Patents
US10024569 and US9976768 are U.S. utility patents covering commercial grease duct systems — the ventilation infrastructure used in commercial kitchen environments to exhaust cooking byproducts safely. Filed under application numbers US14/051016 and US15/406150 respectively, these patents protect specific structural, assembly, or performance configurations of grease duct systems commercially embodied in the DWGD-RZ and GRZ product lines. Grease duct technology sits at the intersection of fire safety regulation and commercial HVAC engineering.
Both patents have now been validated through federal litigation and Federal Circuit appeal, significantly raising their strategic value. For competitors in the commercial kitchen ventilation and fire suppression duct market, these patents represent a fortified IP barrier around specific grease duct configurations. Companies developing competing systems — particularly modular or prefabricated grease duct assemblies — should treat these patents as active enforcement risks and conduct thorough freedom-to-operate analysis before commercial launch.
Should you run an FTO against US10024569 and US9976768?
Any manufacturer, distributor, or OEM operating in the commercial grease duct or kitchen ventilation duct market should consider a freedom-to-operate assessment against US10024569 and US9976768. Following Federal Circuit affirmance, both patents carry maximum judicial credibility. Products that replicate the structural or assembly characteristics of the DWGD-RZ or GRZ systems — or that fall within claim scope as construed by the lower court — face elevated infringement risk in any future enforcement action by Van-Packer or Jeremias.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product specifications against the claim language of both patents, identify relevant prior art, and surface prosecution history that may define claim boundaries. For R&D teams designing grease duct assemblies, Eureka can generate a rapid landscape of related patent families and flag design-around opportunities — reducing the time and cost of traditional FTO analysis while capturing the full scope of Van-Packer and Jeremias’s patent portfolio.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10024569 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patent appeals in commercial HVAC and duct systems
Federal Circuit patent appeals involving commercial HVAC, grease duct, and fire-rated ventilation system patents — cases with comparable infringement and affirmance dynamics.
What this case signals for the commercial grease duct IP landscape
A Federal Circuit affirmance on two grease duct patents reshapes the competitive and licensing dynamics across commercial kitchen ventilation.
Rule 36 affirmances still carry real weight — do not underestimate them
A summary affirmance without opinion is not a weak outcome for patent holders. It confirms the lower court’s analysis withstood appellate scrutiny across all challenged issues. For competitors, it means both US10024569 and US9976768 have been tested and upheld — making design-around or invalidity arguments at district court level materially harder to sustain.
IPR remains the most viable remaining challenge route for Dura
With Federal Circuit appeal exhausted, inter partes review at the USPTO is the primary remaining invalidity path for Dura Systems or any third party. However, IPR petitioners must navigate estoppel risk if the same prior art was raised below. Any company considering IPR against US10024569 or US9976768 should audit the lower court record for art and arguments already adjudicated.
Van-Packer v Dura — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s judgment without issuing a written opinion, invoking Rule 36. This means the panel found no reversible error in the proceedings below. The decision confirms the enforceability of US10024569 and US9976768 and leaves intact whatever infringement finding and remedy the lower court awarded against Dura Systems Barriers.
Two patents were asserted: US10024569 (application no. US14/051016) and US9976768 (application no. US15/406150). Both cover commercial grease duct system technology and were commercialised through the DWGD-RZ Grease Duct System and the GRZ Grease Duct System product lines sold by the plaintiffs.
Dura Systems Barriers’ primary remaining options are a petition for rehearing en banc at the Federal Circuit — statistically unlikely following a Rule 36 affirmance — or a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. Inter partes review at the USPTO is a separate avenue to challenge patent validity, though estoppel concerns may apply depending on which prior art and arguments were adjudicated in the district court proceedings.
The appeal was filed on 6 March 2024 and closed on 5 June 2025 — a duration of 456 days. This is above the typical median for Federal Circuit patent appeals resolved by summary affirmance, suggesting the panel reviewed the record substantively before determining no written opinion was necessary.
The DWGD-RZ and GRZ Grease Duct Systems represent the commercial embodiment of the two asserted patents. They are commercial kitchen ventilation products used in grease exhaust applications subject to fire safety standards. The patents’ survival through Federal Circuit appeal means Van-Packer and Jeremias hold judicially validated IP around these specific product configurations, strengthening their market and licensing position against competing grease duct manufacturers.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.