Weber Inc. v. Provisur Technologies: Federal Circuit Reverses Slicing Machine Patent Ruling
Weber Inc. challenged an invalidity decision against two high-speed slicing machine patents at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After 645 days on appeal, the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded — handing Weber a partial win that sends key patentability questions back for reconsideration.
Federal Circuit partially revives Weber’s slicing machine patents
Weber, Inc. filed this appeal on 4 May 2022 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, docket 22-1751, challenging an adverse patentability determination involving two U.S. patents — US10625436 and US10639812 — both directed to high-speed slicing machine technology. The defendant-appellee, Provisur Technologies, Inc., had successfully argued invalidity or cancellation of these patents at the trial level before Weber brought the dispute to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit issued its disposition on 8 February 2024, reversing in part and vacating in part the lower tribunal’s ruling, and remanding the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. A reversal means the appellate court disagreed with specific legal or factual conclusions below; a vacatur removes those rulings from effect without necessarily deciding the ultimate question. Together, they signal that at least some of Weber’s patent claims survived appellate scrutiny.
The 645-day appeal duration is consistent with the Federal Circuit’s typical docket pace for inter partes review or post-grant proceedings on appeal. The mixed outcome — partial reversal, partial vacatur, and remand — leaves the ultimate validity of both patents unresolved pending the lower tribunal’s reconsideration. The precise scope of which claims were reversed versus vacated, and on what grounds, is not determinable from the docket summary alone and would require review of the court’s written opinion.
Filing to settlement in 645 days
645 days — Federal Circuit appeal duration
What ‘Reversed-in-Part, Vacated-in-Part, and Remanded’ means for both parties
What a partial reversal means at the Federal Circuit
When the Federal Circuit reverses in part, it directly overturns specific conclusions of the tribunal below — finding those determinations legally incorrect. For Weber, a reversal on patentability grounds means at least some claims the lower body invalidated are reinstated. The reversal is binding; the lower tribunal cannot relitigate those reversed points on remand.
Claims reinstated on reversalVacatur vs. reversal — a critical distinction
A vacatur wipes out the lower ruling without substituting a new outcome — it instructs the tribunal to reconsider. Unlike a reversal, it does not guarantee Weber wins on those points; it only ensures the lower body must re-examine them under the Federal Circuit’s guidance. The public record does not specify which claims were reversed versus vacated, meaning the ultimate validity of both patents remains open.
Vacated claims back in playWhat remand means for the ongoing dispute
Remand returns the matter — likely to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or originating tribunal — for proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit’s opinion. Both parties must re-engage with the patentability questions the court identified as wrongly decided or inadequately analysed. This extends the litigation timeline and preserves Provisur’s opportunity to argue invalidity again within the Federal Circuit’s corrected framework.
Proceedings continue belowProvisional patent protection during remand
During remand, the status of US10625436 and US10639812 is in flux. Competitors and licensees in the high-speed slicing machine space should monitor the remand outcome closely. Claims reinstated by reversal may be enforceable; vacated claims remain uncertain. Companies developing or commercialising slicing equipment should treat these patents as live risk factors until the lower tribunal issues its final determination.
Monitor remand outcomeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Weber, Inc. | Company | Food processing equipment company — holder of US10625436 and US10639812Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Provisur Technologies, Inc. | Company | Provisur Technologies, Inc. — food processing and slicing equipment manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ralph Wilson Powers III | Attorney | Counsel for Weber, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard Crudo | Attorney | Counsel for Weber, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Trevor O’neill | Attorney | Counsel for Weber, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Craig C. Martin | Attorney | Counsel for Provisur Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Babbitt | Attorney | Counsel for Provisur Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Renhow Harn | Attorney | Counsel for Provisur Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sara Tonnies Horton | 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 materially favourable outcome for Weber compared to a full affirmance. The mixed phrasing signals the court found distinct legal errors warranting different remedies across different claim sets or issues. A reversal provides immediate, binding relief; a vacatur creates a procedural do-over. Neither party has a clean win, and the remand means patentability of US10625436 and US10639812 remains contested. Practitioners should review the written opinion to identify which claims and legal standards the Federal Circuit corrected.
US10625436 & US10639812 — High-Speed Slicing Machine Technology
US10625436 (application US16/210583) and US10639812 (application US16/017346) are both directed to high-speed slicing machine technology — equipment used in industrial food processing for precision, high-throughput cutting of meat, cheese, and similar products. Both applications were filed in the 2018 timeframe, placing them squarely in a generation of slicing equipment incorporating advanced automation and control systems. Weber, Inc. is a well-known manufacturer in this space, and these patents appear to protect innovations in machine architecture, operational control, or throughput optimisation.
High-speed slicing is a capital-intensive, competitive segment of food processing equipment manufacturing. Patent protection in this area directly affects OEM licensing negotiations, equipment supply contracts, and competitive product development timelines. The fact that Provisur Technologies — a direct competitor to Weber in industrial slicing — challenged these patents at the PTAB level underscores their commercial significance. The Federal Circuit’s partial reinstatement of validity suggests the claims have non-trivial scope that survives post-grant challenge, making them material assets in Weber’s IP portfolio.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10625436 and US10639812?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or commercialising high-speed slicing equipment — whether for meat, cheese, or other food products — should treat US10625436 and US10639812 as live FTO risk factors. The Federal Circuit’s partial reversal means at least some claims are valid and potentially enforceable. OEMs supplying slicers, integrators building automated cutting lines, and food processors procuring new equipment should assess whether their product architectures read on the reinstated claims before the remand produces a final patentability determination.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US10625436 and US10639812 against your product specifications, flagging overlap risk and identifying design-around opportunities. As the remand proceeds, Eureka’s claim monitoring tools can alert your team when the lower tribunal issues new findings — ensuring your FTO analysis stays current as the legal status of these patents evolves.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10625436 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in food processing equipment patent disputes
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 Federal Circuit mixed reversal in slicing machine patents reshapes infringement risk and licensing dynamics across the sector.
Partial reversal keeps Weber’s patent portfolio commercially relevant
The Federal Circuit’s decision to reverse at least part of the invalidity ruling means Weber retains enforceable patent rights in the high-speed slicing space. Competitors who may have assumed these patents were eliminated should reassess product clearance strategies. Provisur and similarly positioned manufacturers face renewed exposure until the remand concludes.
Remand creates a window of uncertainty that both parties can exploit
The vacated portions return to the lower tribunal without a predetermined outcome. This creates settlement leverage for both sides — Weber can negotiate from a stronger position post-reversal, while Provisur may seek to invalidate the vacated claims on different grounds. Companies watching this dispute should track whether the remand produces a licensing agreement or continued adversarial proceedings.
Weber v Provisur — key questions answered
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mixed decision on 8 February 2024: reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. This means the Federal Circuit overturned some of the lower tribunal’s invalidity findings on Weber’s slicing machine patents and sent the remaining issues back for reconsideration.
Two U.S. patents were at issue: US10625436 (application US16/210583) and US10639812 (application US16/017346). Both are directed to high-speed slicing machine technology. The underlying dispute concerned the patentability — specifically the validity — of these patents.
A reversal means the Federal Circuit found specific rulings below legally incorrect and substituted its own conclusion — reinstating those patent claims. A vacatur nullifies other rulings without deciding them, requiring the lower tribunal to reconsider. Remand sends the case back for further proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit’s opinion.
The remand means patentability of at least some claims in US10625436 and US10639812 remains unresolved. The lower tribunal — likely the PTAB — must reconsider those issues under the Federal Circuit’s corrected legal framework. Competitors should monitor the remand outcome before making final freedom-to-operate conclusions.
Weber was represented by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, with attorneys Ralph Wilson Powers III, Richard Crudo, and Trevor O’Neill. Provisur was represented by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, with Craig C. Martin, Michael Babbitt, Renhow Harn, and Sara Tonnies Horton.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.