Wirtz Mfg. v. MAC Engineering: Battery Grid Pasting Patent Dispute Ends With Prejudice
Wirtz Manufacturing Company, Inc. filed suit against MAC Engineering and Equipment Company, Inc. in the Western District of Michigan, asserting infringement of US9744552B2 covering battery grid pasting machine technology. The case resolved after 376 days via a stipulated voluntary dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees — suggesting a negotiated resolution outside the court record.
Battery grid pasting IP dispute settles on neutral cost terms after 376 days
On November 15, 2024, Wirtz Manufacturing Company, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against MAC Engineering and Equipment Company, Inc. in the Western District of Michigan (Case No. 1:24-cv-01218). The suit centred on US9744552B2, a patent covering a battery grid pasting machine and system — technology central to the lead-acid battery manufacturing supply chain. Both parties are established players in battery manufacturing equipment, making this a direct competitor dispute over core production machinery.
The case closed on November 26, 2025, via a stipulated voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed jointly under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dismissal with prejudice means Wirtz is permanently barred from re-asserting the same patent claims against MAC Engineering on the same grounds. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement — each party absorbing its own attorneys’ fees — suggests neither side extracted a financial concession in the formal record, which is a common hallmark of a confidential settlement reached before trial or major motion practice.
A resolution in approximately 376 days, before reaching claim construction or summary judgment, suggests the parties may have resolved the underlying commercial dispute privately, potentially through a licensing agreement or cross-licensing arrangement, though the public record is silent on any such terms. The with-prejudice designation is notable: it forecloses future litigation on these specific claims, providing MAC Engineering with a degree of certainty regarding this patent. What drove the parties to resolve rather than litigate — whether invalidity risk, design-around feasibility, or commercial negotiation — remains undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 376 days
376 days from filing to dismissal — consistent with early-stage settlement before significant litigation costs
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires both parties’ signatures and, when filed with prejudice, operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Unlike a court-ordered dismissal, this is a private agreement memorialised as a court filing. The with-prejudice designation means the claim is permanently extinguished — Wirtz cannot refile the same infringement allegations against MAC Engineering under US9744552B2.
Permanent bar on re-filingWirtz gives up the right to re-assert these claims
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Wirtz Manufacturing permanently relinquishes the right to pursue MAC Engineering on the same patent claims. This is a meaningful concession unless offset by a confidential agreement — such as a licence, royalty arrangement, or product carve-out — reached outside the court record. The mutual cost-bearing term suggests Wirtz did not extract an explicit financial award through litigation, though any private settlement terms are not publicly disclosed.
Claims extinguished against MACMAC Engineering secures permanent resolution on these patent claims
The with-prejudice dismissal gives MAC Engineering certainty that Wirtz cannot re-litigate US9744552B2 infringement on the same grounds. MAC avoids a public adjudication on validity or infringement — preserving its product line without a court-stamped finding either way. The absence of fee-shifting means MAC bore its own defence costs, consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a decisive litigation win. Any licence or operational terms agreed privately would not appear in the court record.
No validity ruling — private certaintyBattery equipment IP: private resolution leaves market questions open
The with-prejudice exit without a public merits ruling means US9744552B2 remains valid and enforceable — Wirtz retains the right to enforce it against other competitors in the battery grid pasting equipment market. No claim construction or invalidity findings emerged that competitors could rely on. For other manufacturers of battery grid pasting machines, this case signals that Wirtz is willing to litigate this patent, and that MAC Engineering resolved the matter on undisclosed terms rather than fight to invalidate the claims.
Patent remains enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Wirtz Manufacturing Company, Inc. | Company | Battery manufacturing equipment maker — holder of US9744552B2 covering grid pasting systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | MAC Engineering And Equipment Company, Inc. | Company | MAC Engineering and Equipment Company, Inc. — competitor in battery manufacturing equipmentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard William Hoffmann. | Attorney | Counsel for Wirtz Manufacturing Company, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Reising, Ethington PC | Law Firm | Representing Wirtz Manufacturing Company, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dale Randall Brown | Attorney | Counsel for MAC Engineering And Equipment Company, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lisa Dawn Starks | Attorney | Counsel for MAC Engineering And Equipment Company, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Barnes & Thornburg, LLP (Fort Wayne) | Law Firm | Representing MAC Engineering And Equipment Company, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Michigan Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal language — ‘voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice… each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees’ — is precise and consequential. The with-prejudice designation, agreed jointly under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), constitutes a final disposition on the merits, permanently barring Wirtz from re-asserting these claims against MAC Engineering. The symmetrical cost allocation is notable: it suggests neither party secured a clear litigation advantage, and is consistent with a private commercial resolution. No findings on validity, infringement, or claim construction were issued.
US9744552B2 — Battery Grid Pasting Machine and System
US9744552B2, filed under application number US15/181842, protects a battery grid pasting machine and system — technology used in the manufacture of lead-acid battery plates, where a paste compound is applied to grid structures to form electrodes. This is a core process step in lead-acid battery production, covering the mechanical and systems-level architecture of the pasting equipment. The patent’s grant date and application history place it within a period of active innovation in battery manufacturing automation, relevant to both automotive and industrial battery supply chains.
In the battery manufacturing equipment sector, control of pasting machine technology translates directly to competitive advantage: manufacturers who hold or licence key process patents can shape supplier relationships, OEM agreements, and the cost structure of lead-acid battery production lines globally. Wirtz Manufacturing’s willingness to assert US9744552B2 against a direct competitor signals that the company views this patent as a commercially valuable enforcement asset. For other equipment manufacturers and battery producers evaluating capital equipment sourcing, understanding the claim scope of this patent is essential to managing IP exposure in procurement and product development decisions.
Should your battery manufacturing equipment run an FTO against US9744552B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or procuring battery grid pasting machines and systems should assess freedom-to-operate against US9744552B2 before product launch or capital equipment investment. This case demonstrates that Wirtz Manufacturing actively enforces this patent against direct competitors in the Western District of Michigan. R&D and product teams developing grid pasting equipment, automated battery plate production lines, or related lead-acid battery manufacturing systems face direct exposure if their designs overlap with the protected claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP teams to map the claim scope of US9744552B2 against your specific product architecture, identify relevant prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface any continuation or divisional patents in the same family that could extend the enforcement landscape. Eureka can also flag any post-grant proceedings — such as IPR petitions — that may affect the patent’s validity status, giving your team real-time intelligence on enforcement risk before committing to a product design or equipment purchase.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9744552B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar battery manufacturing equipment patent disputes in US district courts
Cases involving battery manufacturing equipment patents and competitor-on-competitor infringement actions in the Western District of Michigan and related federal districts.
What this case signals for the battery manufacturing equipment IP landscape
A competitor-on-competitor dispute resolved privately — US9744552B2 remains live and enforceable against the broader market.
US9744552B2 remains fully enforceable after this dismissal
Because the case resolved without any court ruling on validity or infringement, US9744552B2 carries no weakened presumption of validity. Wirtz retains full enforcement rights against other battery grid pasting equipment manufacturers. Companies operating in this space should treat the patent as an active litigation risk, not a spent threat.
With-prejudice dismissals in competitor disputes often signal confidential licensing
When both parties agree to dismiss with prejudice and each bears its own costs, it typically signals a negotiated resolution — often a patent licence, cross-licence, or market-division agreement — reached outside the court record. The 376-day timeline, before any substantive motion practice, is consistent with early commercial negotiation rather than prolonged litigation attrition.
Wirtz v MAC — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on November 26, 2025, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees. No merits ruling on infringement or validity was issued. The with-prejudice designation permanently bars Wirtz from re-asserting the same claims against MAC Engineering.
Wirtz Manufacturing asserted US9744552B2, filed under application number US15/181842, covering a battery grid pasting machine and system. This patent relates to technology used in the manufacture of lead-acid battery plates — a core process in battery electrode production relevant to automotive and industrial battery supply chains.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Wirtz Manufacturing is permanently barred from re-filing the same patent infringement claims against MAC Engineering under US9744552B2 on the same grounds. However, Wirtz retains full rights to enforce the patent against other third parties in the battery manufacturing equipment market.
No. Because the case resolved without any court ruling on validity or infringement, US9744552B2 carries no diminished presumption of validity resulting from this case. The patent remains fully enforceable. No claim construction order or invalidity finding was issued that competitors could rely upon in subsequent disputes or post-grant proceedings.
When both parties agree to bear their own costs in a with-prejudice dismissal, it typically suggests a negotiated commercial resolution rather than a decisive litigation outcome for either side. This structure is consistent with a confidential patent licence, cross-licence, or other commercial agreement reached outside the court record. The specific terms, if any, of any such arrangement are not publicly disclosed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.