Wearwell v. M+A Matting: Modular Mat Patent Case Settles After 1,019 Days
Wearwell, LLC brought patent infringement claims against competitor M+A Matting, LLC over interlocking modular mat technology protected by two U.S. patents. Filed in the Northern District of Georgia in February 2023, the dispute ran nearly three years before the parties reached a settlement in principle on December 8, 2025.
Two Competing Mat Manufacturers Head to Settlement After Nearly Three Years
On February 23, 2023, Wearwell, LLC filed a patent infringement action against M+A Matting, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 3:23-cv-00032), before Judge Leigh Martin May. Wearwell asserted two patents — US11174648B2 and US11454037B1 — both directed to interlocking modular mat technology incorporating a sponge insert, a product category central to industrial and commercial safety flooring.
On December 8, 2025, the parties jointly notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle and were finalising documentation. Judge May administratively closed the case and directed the parties to file either formal dismissal documents or a joint status update within 60 days. The public record does not disclose financial terms, licensing arrangements, or which party’s position prevailed in negotiations.
At 1,019 days, the case ran longer than the typical median for resolved patent disputes in district courts, suggesting substantive litigation activity — potentially including claim construction, discovery disputes, or expert proceedings — before resolution. What drove the parties to settle rather than proceed to trial is not evident from public filings, and the precise contours of any licence or business arrangement reached remain confidential.
Filing to Case Terminated in 1019 days
1,019 days — above the ~730-day median for resolved patent cases in N.D. Georgia
Case settled: what the resolution means for both parties
Administrative closure pending final dismissal
The court’s December 8, 2025 order administratively closed the case after the parties notified it of a settlement in principle. Administrative closure is not a final judgment — the case formally remains open until a stipulation of dismissal or consent judgment is filed within the 60-day window directed by Judge May. No merits determination was made by the court.
No judicial merits rulingWith or without prejudice? The record is silent
The public record does not specify whether the forthcoming dismissal will be with or without prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice bars Wearwell from re-filing the same infringement claims; without prejudice preserves that right. This distinction matters materially for M+A Matting’s freedom to operate going forward. Until the dismissal documents are filed, the precise terms remain unknown.
Prejudice terms undisclosedWearwell avoids trial risk but terms undisclosed
Wearwell brought infringement claims on two patents and chose to settle before a merits ruling. This is consistent with a plaintiff securing commercial certainty — potentially a licensing fee or behavioural undertaking from M+A Matting — while avoiding the expense and risk of trial. Whether Wearwell achieved its enforcement objectives is not apparent from public filings.
Enforcement outcome confidentialM+A Matting avoids validity and infringement findings
Settlement means no court found US11174648B2 or US11454037B1 infringed, nor were they adjudicated invalid. M+A Matting avoids a potentially binding adverse ruling on the validity or scope of Wearwell’s modular mat patents. Depending on the settlement terms, however, M+A Matting may have accepted design-around obligations or paid compensation — details that remain private.
No validity ruling on patentsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Wearwell, LLC | Company | Industrial safety matting manufacturer — holder of US11174648B2 and US11454037B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | M+A Matting, LLC | Company | Commercial matting supplier M+A Matting, LLC — accused of infringing modular mat patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexandra T. MacKay | Attorney | Counsel for Wearwell, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joel T. Beres | Attorney | Counsel for Wearwell, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julie Cahill | Attorney | Counsel for Wearwell, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samuel F. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for Wearwell, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Stites & Harbison PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Wearwell, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Stites & Harbison, PLLC-TN | Law Firm | Representing Wearwell, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | L. Clint Crosby | Attorney | Counsel for M+A Matting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tyler Preston Bishop | Attorney | Counsel for M+A Matting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.-GA | Law Firm | Representing M+A Matting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Leigh Martin May | Judge | Georgia Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The December 8, 2025 notice confirms settlement in principle but contains no admission of infringement, no validity ruling, and no damages figure. The court’s administrative closure order is procedural — it preserves docket control while the parties finalise documents. The 60-day filing directive means the formal outcome (with or without prejudice) will only become clear when the stipulation of dismissal is entered, likely in early 2026.
US11174648B2 & US11454037B1 — Interlocking Modular Mat with Sponge Insert
US11174648B2 (application no. US16/839101) and US11454037B1 (application no. US17/858246) both protect innovations in interlocking modular mat technology incorporating a sponge insert. These patents sit in the industrial safety flooring sector — products used in manufacturing, warehousing, and commercial environments to reduce fatigue and improve underfoot safety. The two-patent assertion suggests a layered protection strategy covering both product construction and potentially method or design variants.
For the commercial matting sector, Wearwell’s dual-patent position creates a meaningful IP barrier. Both patents issuing from separate application numbers suggests a deliberate continuation or divisional strategy to maintain broad prosecution coverage. Any competitor producing interlocking modular mats with cushioning insert elements — regardless of material label — should treat these patents as primary clearance targets. The settlement without a validity ruling reinforces their apparent enforceability.
Should you run an FTO against US11174648B2 and US11454037B1?
Product managers and R&D teams developing interlocking modular mat systems — particularly those featuring removable or integrated cushioning inserts — should prioritise freedom-to-operate analysis against Wearwell’s patent portfolio. The settlement in this case means no court has narrowed or invalidated these claims, leaving their full scope intact. Companies selling into U.S. markets, including through distributors, face real exposure without a written clearance opinion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP teams to map claim language from US11174648B2 and US11454037B1 against existing products and prior art in seconds. Eureka can surface related Wearwell family members, identify prosecution history disclaimers, and flag competitor design-around attempts — giving your legal and product teams the intelligence needed to make informed go/no-go decisions before a cease-and-desist lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11174648B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Modular Mat & Industrial Flooring Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore comparable interlocking mat and industrial flooring patent infringement cases filed in U.S. district courts, including N.D. Georgia, to benchmark litigation strategy and outcomes.
What this case signals for the industrial matting IP landscape
A near-three-year patent fight between two matting specialists settles quietly — but the underlying patents remain active enforcement tools.
Both asserted patents remain in force and are live enforcement risks
Settlement without a validity ruling leaves US11174648B2 and US11454037B1 fully intact. Any manufacturer, distributor, or importer of interlocking modular mats with sponge inserts should assess exposure to these patents before launching or expanding competing products. The absence of an invalidity finding raises, not lowers, the enforcement risk.
N.D. Georgia is an active venue for industrial product IP disputes
Wearwell’s choice of the Northern District of Georgia — where M+A Matting likely has operations or sales — reflects a deliberate venue strategy. IP teams monitoring competitor filings in the commercial matting space should track this court for follow-on enforcement activity by Wearwell or defensive filings by M+A Matting.
Wearwell v M+A — key questions answered
Wearwell asserted two patents: US11174648B2 (application US16/839101) and US11454037B1 (application US17/858246). Both cover interlocking modular mat technology incorporating a sponge insert, used in industrial and commercial flooring applications.
The case settled in principle on December 8, 2025. The court administratively closed the docket and directed the parties to file dismissal documents within 60 days. Financial terms, licensing arrangements, and prejudice status were not disclosed in the public record.
Yes. Because the case settled before any merits ruling, neither patent was adjudicated invalid or found not infringed. Both patents remain in full force and represent active enforcement risks for competitors in the modular mat space.
The Northern District of Georgia is consistent with venue based on M+A Matting’s likely business operations or sales in that district. Patent holders commonly file in districts where defendants have commercial activity to establish personal jurisdiction and venue convenience.
A duration of 1,019 days is above the typical median for resolved district court patent cases and suggests the litigation involved substantive proceedings — potentially including discovery, claim construction, or expert work — before the parties reached settlement. The length is consistent with a genuinely contested dispute rather than an early nuisance settlement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.