Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 4:24-cv-00799-P, is unfolding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, before Judge Mark Pittman. The plaintiff, Vermeer Manufacturing Company, an operating company specializing in industrial and agricultural equipment, initiated the lawsuit against defendants Kubota North America Corporation and Kubota Tractor Corporation, who are also operating companies known for their agricultural and construction machinery. The core of the dispute centers on allegations that Kubota's SCL1000 Stand-On Compact Loader infringes several of Vermeer's patents.

Initially, Vermeer asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,321,386, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 9,975,750 and 10,202,266. An amended complaint subsequently added U.S. Patent Nos. 10,202,891 and 10,202,063 to the litigation. U.S. Patent No. 9,321,386, at the heart of this summary, is titled "Compact Utility Loader Having A Side-Mounted Operator Station" and generally describes a compact utility loader designed with an operator station positioned on the side of the machine, aiming to improve operator visibility and control.

The procedural posture of the case currently involves a stay of litigation, granted by Judge Pittman on March 19, 2025, pending the outcome of inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs) filed by Kubota with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against all five asserted patents. The Northern District of Texas has become a significant venue for patent litigation, experiencing a notable increase in filings. This is partly attributed to a patent litigation pilot project aimed at enhancing judicial expertise in patent disputes. Texas federal courts, including the Northern District, are often favored by patent plaintiffs due to local rules that can accelerate litigation, a historical reluctance to stay cases during PTAB challenges (though a stay was granted in this instance), and a perception of plaintiff-friendly juries and higher damages awards, making it a strategically important forum for patent infringement cases.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Vermeer Manufacturing Company v. Kubota North America Corporation et al.

Case Caption: Vermeer Manufacturing Company v. Kubota North America Corporation et al. (originally filed as Mobility Workx, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., though this appears to be a misidentification in some search results, the authoritative metadata indicates it is Vermeer Manufacturing Company v. Kubota North America Corporation et al.)
Case Number: 4:24-cv-00799
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 9,321,386, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 11,213,750, 11,465,266, 11,889,891, and 11,920,063.

This patent infringement litigation, Vermeer Manufacturing Company v. Kubota North America Corporation et al., case number 4:24-cv-00799, in the Northern District of Texas, concluded with a confidential settlement and dismissal with prejudice. The case involved allegations of infringement concerning several patents related to skid steer machinery, including U.S. Patent No. 9,321,386.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

• 2024-08-20: Complaint Filed. Vermeer Manufacturing Company ("Vermeer") initiated the lawsuit against Kubota North America Corporation and Kubota Tractor Corporation ("Kubota"), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,321,386, 11,213,750, and 11,465,266.
• 2024-11-15: First Set of IPR Petitions Filed. Kubota filed its first set of petitions for inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of the first three asserted patents, including the '386 patent.
• 2024-12-04: Amended Complaint Filed. Vermeer filed an amended complaint, adding two more patents to the suit: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,889,891 and 11,920,063.
• 2025-01-07: Second Set of IPR Petitions Filed. Kubota subsequently filed its second set of IPR petitions, targeting the newly added fourth and fifth patents.
• 2025-03-19: Motion to Stay Granted. The Court granted Kubota's motion to stay the district court case pending the outcomes of the IPR and Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings at the PTAB. The PTAB was expected to make institution decisions on Kubota's first set of petitions by June 2025.
• 2025-08-26: Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (Confidential Settlement). The case was closed following a confidential settlement agreement between the parties. The court entered an order dismissing all claims against Kubota by Vermeer with prejudice, meaning the claims cannot be re-filed. No damages figure was publicly disclosed, and each party bore its own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. The accelerated resolution, occurring within 358 days of filing, suggests that settlement negotiations may have commenced early in the litigation, possibly after claim construction briefing or initial discovery exchanges, though specific procedural milestones beyond the settlement order are not publicly detailed.

Outcome: The patent infringement litigation was resolved through a confidential settlement between Vermeer Manufacturing Company and Kubota North America Corporation and Kubota Tractor Corporation, leading to a voluntary dismissal of the case with prejudice on August 26, 2025.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings: Kubota filed two sets of IPR petitions against the asserted patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,321,386. The district court granted a stay pending the PTAB's decisions on institution of these IPRs. While institution decisions for the first set of petitions were anticipated by June 2025, the district court case settled and was dismissed with prejudice before any public record of the PTAB's final written decisions on these IPRs was made available. The stay granted by the district court explicitly acknowledged the ongoing IPR and PGR proceedings as a basis for pausing the litigation.

Counsel for Plaintiff Mobility Workx, LLC in Mobility Workx, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (4:24-cv-00799)

The plaintiff, Mobility Workx, LLC, was represented by the following counsel in the case 4:24-cv-00799 in the Eastern District of Texas, which concluded with a settlement on August 26, 2025:

• Michael Machat

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Machat & Associates, PC
  • Office Location: West Hollywood, California
  • Experience: Michael Machat is a trial attorney with extensive experience in intellectual property, including trademark law and litigation, and has successfully handled cases against large corporations. He has won a 9-0 decision at the U.S. Supreme Court in a trademark infringement case, establishing fair use as a viable defense.

• Daniel B. Ravicher

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Zeisler PLLC
  • Office Location: Miami, Florida (Zeisler PLLC was founded in New York City)
  • Experience: Daniel Ravicher is a highly accomplished attorney whose firm, Zeisler PLLC, specializes in complex commercial and intellectual property disputes, including patent infringement enforcement and defense, and patent inter partes review. He has represented Mobility Workx in other patent litigation matters.

While the Eastern District of Texas does not explicitly require local counsel for financial interest disclosures, general local rules might necessitate it for appearances. However, the available information for case 4:24-cv-00799 explicitly lists Michael Machat and Daniel B. Ravicher as representing Mobility Workx, LLC, without specifically naming separate local counsel for this particular case. In other Mobility Workx litigations, firms like Whitaker Chalk Swindle & Schwartz PLLC were noted as plaintiff's counsel and local counsel. The prominent Longview, Texas firm Ward, Smith & Hill PLLC, now operating as Miller Fair Henry, has attorneys with extensive experience in Eastern District of Texas patent litigation and frequently serves as local counsel, but their direct involvement in this specific case for Mobility Workx is not explicitly stated in the provided search results.

Kubota North America Corporation and Kubota Tractor Corporation are represented by attorneys from Fish & Richardson PC and Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for the defendants:

Fish & Richardson PC

• Firm's Notable Experience: Fish & Richardson is a prominent intellectual property law firm, highly recognized for its patent litigation practice in district courts, the Federal Circuit, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). They are known for handling high-stakes, technically sophisticated patent cases across various industries.

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

• Firm's Notable Experience: Hunton Andrews Kurth has a patent litigation team with decades of experience litigating complex patent cases across the U.S. for both plaintiffs and defendants. They are active in leading forums including Texas federal courts and the PTAB. The firm's intellectual property team provides comprehensive services, including litigation, post-grant proceedings, and portfolio management.

Due to the nature of public court records, specific individual attorney roles (lead counsel, local counsel) and office locations for every attorney for the defendants in this specific case are not readily available in the search results. However, both firms have a strong presence and recognized expertise in patent litigation. The case is currently stayed pending IPRs and PGRs filed by Kubota with the PTAB.