Vekoma vs. B&M: Amusement Ride Patent Case Dismissed with Prejudice
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Vekoma Rides Engineering B.V. v. Bolliger & Mabillard Consulting Engineers, Inc. |
| Case Number | 6:24-cv-00639 (M.D. Fla.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Duration | Apr 2024 – Jan 2026 1 year 10 months |
| Outcome | Dismissed with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Amusement ride device and pipeline technology |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Netherlands-based ride engineering company, global leader in roller coaster and thrill ride design, holding an extensive patent portfolio.
🛡️ Defendant
Switzerland-based roller coaster manufacturer, known for inventing the inverted coaster and supplying major theme park operators.
Patents at Issue
This dispute centered on **U.S. Patent No. US7987793B2** (application number US12/302005), directed to an **amusement ride device** and **pipeline** technology. The technology area broadly concerns ride track systems and conveyance mechanisms — core infrastructure in competitive roller coaster engineering.
- • US7987793B2 — Amusement ride device and pipeline technology
Designing a similar ride system?
Check if your amusement ride design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The court entered a final judgment stating: **”This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”** No damages award is reflected in the record, and no injunctive relief was granted. This dismissal permanently bars Vekoma from asserting the same claims against B&M based on the same patent and accused products in any subsequent federal action.
Key Legal Issues
The absence of a published merits ruling means no claim construction findings, validity determinations, or infringement analyses were formally issued by the court. However, the with-prejudice nature of the dismissal, combined with the post-dismissal attorney’s fees window, is consistent with a **negotiated resolution** – potentially including a licensing arrangement, cross-licensing structure, or paid settlement – between two highly sophisticated parties with ongoing commercial interests in the amusement ride market.
Because no substantive ruling on patent validity or infringement was issued, **US7987793B2** remains unchallenged by judicial determination in this forum. The patent’s claims retain their presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. This matters for third-party ride manufacturers who may face future assertion of this patent: there is no adverse claim construction or invalidity ruling from this litigation to invoke defensively.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in amusement ride design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View related patents in ride engineering technology
- See which companies are most active in mechanical patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for ride systems
🔍 Check My Ride’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own amusement ride technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
Active IP Battleground
Ride track systems & conveyance mechanisms
1 Patent in Case
US7987793B2 still enforceable
FTO Review Essential
For new ride system designs
✅ Key Takeaways
A with-prejudice dismissal without a merits ruling preserves the patent’s validity presumption — critical for future enforcement posture.
Search related case law →The Middle District of Florida is an emerging venue for amusement technology IP disputes given its geographic and commercial relevance.
Explore precedents →Dual law firm representation by both parties reflects the complexity and resource intensity of ride technology patent litigation.
View legal strategy insights →US7987793B2 remains an active, judicially unchallenged patent — in-house counsel at ride manufacturers should ensure it is on their IP monitoring radar.
Monitor this patent →Cross-licensing and negotiated resolution appear to be the dominant resolution mechanism in this sector, consistent with long-term commercial relationships.
Analyze licensing trends →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. US7987793B2 (application no. US12/302005), directed to amusement ride device and pipeline technology.
The available court record does not specify the exact mechanism, but the with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Vekoma from relitigating the same claims — a resolution consistent with a negotiated settlement or licensing agreement between the parties.
The absence of a merits ruling means the patent remains unchallenged, and no claim construction precedent was established. Competitors and ride manufacturers should treat US7987793B2 as an enforceable patent and conduct appropriate FTO analysis.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database — US7987793B2
- PACER – Case No. 6:24-cv-00639
- Middle District of Florida Local Rules
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 282
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.