Weber v. Provisur Technologies: Federal Circuit Reverses & Remands Slicing Machine Patent
Weber, Inc. appealed an invalidity/cancellation ruling against Provisur Technologies over US10625436B2, a patent covering high-speed slicing machine technology. The Federal Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part, remanding the case after 630 days — signalling that at least some patent claims survived appellate scrutiny.
Federal Circuit splits the ruling in industrial slicing machine patent appeal
Weber, Inc. brought this appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 22-1813) on 19 May 2022, challenging an invalidity or cancellation determination concerning US10625436B2 — a patent directed at high-speed slicing machine technology used in industrial food processing. The defendant, Provisur Technologies, Inc., had successfully contested patentability at the trial level, prompting Weber’s appeal. Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox represented Weber; Willkie Farr & Gallagher acted for Provisur.
On 8 February 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a split outcome: reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. This tripartite disposition means the appellate court agreed with Weber on at least some grounds, disagreed or withheld judgment on others, and returned unresolved questions to the lower tribunal. Provisur does not walk away with a clean invalidity win; equally, Weber has not yet secured a full reinstatement of its patent claims. The remand keeps the dispute alive.
The 630-day appellate duration is consistent with the Federal Circuit’s typical docket pace for contested patentability appeals. The partial reversal suggests the panel found legal error in how certain claim limitations or prior art were analysed below — though the precise scope of what was reversed versus vacated is not detailed in the available public record. What remains unknown is which specific claims survived, what issues return on remand, and whether the parties will ultimately settle before the lower proceeding concludes.
Filing to settlement in 630 days
630 days — Federal Circuit appeals in patent cases typically run 18–36 months
What ‘Reversed-in-Part, Vacated-in-Part, Remanded’ means for each party
What a partial reversal means at the Federal Circuit
A partial reversal means the Federal Circuit found legal error in at least some of the lower tribunal’s patentability conclusions and substituted its own judgment on those issues. Weber wins something tangible here — certain claims or legal determinations are reinstated. However, ‘in-part’ signals the court did not overturn everything; Provisur’s position is partially preserved.
Weber wins on at least some claimsVacated-in-part: rulings nullified but not replaced
A vacatur wipes out portions of the lower decision without the appellate court substituting a new ruling. Where the Federal Circuit vacated rather than reversed, it found those portions legally unsound but left resolution to the remand. This typically occurs when the record is insufficient, the legal standard was misapplied, or factual findings need to be re-examined — suggesting further substantive proceedings lie ahead.
Issues returned without resolutionCase returns to lower tribunal — what happens next
On remand, the lower body must re-examine the vacated issues under the Federal Circuit’s guidance. This could mean reconsidering prior art analysis, re-evaluating specific claim limitations, or applying a corrected legal standard. For Provisur, the invalidity win is no longer intact. For Weber, the remand is an opportunity to have more claims validated — though the outcome remains uncertain until proceedings conclude.
Further proceedings requiredUS10625436B2 is not dead — but not fully vindicated
The partial reversal means at least some claims of US10625436B2 survived Federal Circuit review and were not found invalid. Competitors and licensees in the high-speed slicing machine space should treat this patent as alive and enforceable to an uncertain extent. The remand means final claim scope and validity status will not be resolved until lower proceedings complete, which may take additional months or years.
Patent status unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Weber, Inc. | Company | Industrial food processing equipment company — holder of US10625436B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Provisur Technologies, Inc. | Company | Provisur Technologies, Inc. — manufacturer of high-speed food slicing and processing equipmentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ralph Wilson Powers III | Attorney | Counsel for Weber, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Babbitt. | Attorney | Counsel for Provisur Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The Federal Circuit’s disposition — reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded — is a meaningfully fragmented outcome. It indicates the panel reached definitive conclusions on some patentability issues (reversing the lower ruling) while finding others insufficiently resolved for a final appellate holding (vacating). For Weber, the reversal component is a concrete win. For Provisur, the vacatur preserves arguable positions on remand. Neither party achieved a clean resolution, and the case’s ultimate outcome turns on what the remand proceedings determine.
US10625436B2 — High-Speed Industrial Slicing Machine Technology
US10625436B2, filed under application number US16/210583, protects technology directed at high-speed slicing machines used in industrial food processing operations. These systems are central to automated portioning and packaging lines in meat, cheese, and deli product manufacturing. The patent represents an engineering advance in throughput, precision, or control within slicing equipment — the specific claim architecture was contested in this proceeding on patentability grounds, with validity now partially reinstated by the Federal Circuit.
For competitors and technology licensees in the food processing automation sector, US10625436B2 now carries renewed enforcement risk following the Federal Circuit’s partial reversal. Weber and Provisur are direct commercial rivals in high-speed slicing equipment, making this patent strategically significant beyond the litigation itself. If Weber’s surviving claims cover core slicing machine architectures — blade control, conveyor coordination, or speed regulation — then any manufacturer or integrator of similar systems should treat this patent as an active clearance concern until remand proceedings conclude.
Should you run an FTO against US10625436B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or integrating high-speed slicing equipment for industrial food processing should assess exposure against US10625436B2 now. The Federal Circuit’s partial reversal means the patent’s claims are at least partially alive — and the remand will not produce certainty quickly. Equipment OEMs, automation integrators, and food processing companies sourcing slicing lines should not assume the invalidation proceedings eliminated this risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product specifications against the surviving and contested claims of US10625436B2, flag design-around opportunities, and surface related patents in Weber’s portfolio that may present adjacent risk. Claim monitoring alerts can notify your team the moment the remand proceedings update the patent’s legal status — keeping your clearance analysis current without manual docket tracking.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10625436B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patentability appeals in food processing equipment
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the food processing equipment IP landscape
A split Federal Circuit ruling keeps US10625436B2 in play and raises enforcement risk for competitors in the industrial slicing machine sector.
Partial reversal restores Weber’s leverage in the high-speed slicing market
By reversing in part, the Federal Circuit signalled that the lower tribunal applied incorrect legal standards to at least some of Weber’s claims. This restores Weber’s ability to assert those claims and materially weakens Provisur’s invalidity defence going forward. Companies competing in industrial food slicing equipment should reassess their FTO exposure against US10625436B2.
Remanded cases often resolve via settlement before retrial
Statistically, cases remanded from the Federal Circuit following a partial reversal frequently settle rather than proceed through full retrial. With the invalidity shield partially dismantled, Provisur faces elevated litigation cost and risk on remand. Both parties have commercial incentive to negotiate — watch for licensing activity or a consent judgment in subsequent docket filings.
Weber v Provisur — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a verdict of reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded on 8 February 2024. The court found legal error in at least some of the lower tribunal’s patentability determinations, partially reinstating Weber’s position on US10625436B2 and returning unresolved issues to the lower body for further proceedings.
The patent at issue is US10625436B2 (application number US16/210583), which covers high-speed slicing machine technology used in industrial food processing. The dispute centred on invalidity and cancellation of this patent’s claims, with patentability as the controlling legal question.
A reversal substitutes the appellate court’s judgment for the lower tribunal’s on specific issues — Weber wins those points outright. A vacatur nullifies portions of the lower decision without resolving them, sending them back for reconsideration. Remand returns the case to the lower tribunal to apply the Federal Circuit’s instructions, meaning the dispute is not yet fully resolved.
Based on the Federal Circuit’s partial reversal, at least some claims of US10625436B2 were not found invalid and survived appellate review. However, the vacatur and remand mean that final validity and claim scope remain uncertain pending lower proceedings. Parties should treat the patent as potentially enforceable until proceedings conclude.
Weber, Inc. was represented by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, with Ralph Wilson Powers III as lead counsel. Provisur Technologies, Inc. was represented by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, with Michael Babbitt as lead counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.