Litigation
ETN Capital LLC v. Unknown
SettlementIPR2024-01445
- Filed
- 2024-06-14
Patents at issue (1)
Plaintiffs (1)
Case overview & background
Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.
This case involves an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), IPR2024-01445, initiated by ETN Capital LLC against FBA Operating Co. ETN Capital LLC, doing business as Beech Lane, LLC, is an operating company that sells the "Beech Lane Wireless RV Leveling System". FBA Operating Co. is identified as a patent-holding entity, suggesting it operates as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), asserting its patent rights. The core of the dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 10,890,925 B2 (the '925 patent), titled "Vehicle Leveling System," which describes a system for leveling a recreational vehicle (RV) using a sensor to detect inclination and a wirelessly connected smart device to calculate and graphically display necessary height adjustments.
The IPR was filed on September 16, 2024, by ETN Capital, LLC, d/b/a Beech Lane, challenging claims 1-20 of the '925 patent owned by FBA Operating Co.. This PTAB action was a direct response to underlying patent infringement litigation, FBA Operating, Co. v. Etn Capital, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00505, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, where FBA Operating Co. accused ETN Capital's RV leveling product of infringement. The PTAB judges assigned to the IPR were Administrative Patent Judges Ken B. Barrett, Michelle N. Wormmeester, and Cynthia M. Hardman. The PTAB is a significant venue for patent challenges due to its potential for faster and more cost-effective validity determinations compared to district court litigation. ETN Capital argued against discretionary denial of the IPR, emphasizing the early stage of the parallel district court proceedings and the presentation of new prior art not previously considered by the USPTO.
The case is notable for several reasons. The underlying district court litigation saw a significant procedural outcome where FBA Operating Co.'s complaint was dismissed with prejudice on January 17, 2025, after ETN Capital's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was granted, which is a strong victory for the accused infringer. FBA Operating Co. then pursued multiple appeals to the Federal Circuit, with one (Case No. 24-2070) being dismissed as premature on August 30, 2024, and another (Case No. 25-1402) initiated on January 30, 2025, ultimately settling and being remanded on July 18, 2025. Consistent with the settlement of the broader litigation, the IPR proceeding also settled. The pattern of an NPE (FBA Operating Co.) asserting patents against an operating company (ETN Capital LLC) and the latter leveraging the PTAB for a validity challenge, alongside successful district court defense and subsequent settlement of appeals, highlights the strategic interplay between district court litigation and IPRs in patent disputes.
Key legal developments & outcome
Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.
The patent infringement litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,890,925 B2, owned by FBA Operating Co., and its alleged infringement by ETN Capital LLC (doing business as Beech Lane) saw developments across both district court and appellate proceedings, as well as a parallel inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The litigation ultimately concluded with a settlement.
Key Legal Developments and Outcome
I. District Court Litigation: FBA Operating Co. v. ETN Capital, LLC d/b/a Beech Lane
- Filing & Initial Pleadings (mid-September 2023): FBA Operating Co. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against ETN Capital LLC, d/b/a Beech Lane, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The case, bearing number 5:23-CV-505-D, asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,890,925 B2, which relates to a wireless RV leveling system.
- Pre-trial Motions (October 10, 2023): FBA Operating Co. filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking to halt the manufacture and sale of Beech Lane's allegedly infringing product. The District Court denied this motion on October 10, 2023, finding that FBA had not established a likelihood of success on the merits.
- Claim Construction (October 10, 2023): During the TRO proceedings, the court engaged in claim construction analysis. It construed phrases such as "simultaneously display[ing]..." to mean the display of both pitch and roll adjustment amounts and directions at the same time, differentiating over prior art that displayed adjustments sequentially. The court also construed "smart device" as a device with computing capabilities that can network with other devices.
- Dismissals (Dates Not Specified): The district court later dismissed both a first and a second infringement complaint filed by FBA Operating Co. against ETN Capital LLC.
- Appeal to Federal Circuit (January 30, 2025): FBA Operating Co. appealed the district court's dismissal decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 25-1402).
II. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding: ETN Capital LLC v. FBA Operating Co. (IPR2024-01445)
- IPR Filing (2024-06-14): ETN Capital LLC (d/b/a Beech Lane) filed a Petition for inter partes review (IPR) against FBA Operating Co. on June 14, 2024, challenging claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,890,925 B2. ETN Capital argued that a stay of the parallel district court litigation would likely occur if the IPR were instituted.
- Preliminary Response (December 30, 2024): Patent Owner FBA Operating Co. filed a Preliminary Response to the IPR petition.
III. Final Disposition – Settlement
- Federal Circuit Settlement and Remand (July 18, 2025): The Federal Circuit appeal (25-1402) closed on July 18, 2025, when FBA Operating Co. and ETN Capital LLC filed a joint notice of settlement and a motion to dismiss. The Federal Circuit granted the motion to the extent of remanding the case to the district court.
- Terms of Settlement: As part of the settlement agreement, ETN Capital LLC agreed to withdraw its pending motion for attorneys' fees that was before the district court.
- IPR Settlement: The IPR proceeding, IPR2024-01445, also concluded with a settlement, as indicated by its "Settlement" status. This typically occurs in conjunction with the resolution of the underlying district court litigation.
Plaintiff representatives
Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).
- Ward and Smith
- Gavin B. Parsons · lead counsel
Based on the available information, while specific counsel of record for ETN Capital LLC in IPR2024-01445 could not be explicitly identified from the direct PTAB docket entries in the search results, Gavin B. Parsons of Ward and Smith, P.A. is confirmed to represent ETN Capital, LLC in the related district court litigation, FBA Operating Co. v. ETN Capital, LLC, Case Number: 5:2023cv00505, involving the same patent. Given the nature of IPRs and parallel district court litigation, it is highly probable that Mr. Parsons or another attorney from his firm also represented ETN Capital LLC in IPR2024-01445.
Counsel for ETN Capital LLC (Petitioner)
- Name: Gavin B. Parsons
- Role: Lead Counsel (in related district court case; likely in IPR)
- Firm: Ward and Smith, P.A.
- Office Location: Raleigh, NC
- Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Parsons is an experienced litigator specializing in high-stakes civil litigation with a particular focus on business and intellectual property disputes, including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret claims. He has a proven track record of successfully resolving numerous intellectual property cases, including patent and trade dress disputes, in state and federal courts. His experience also includes representing clients before administrative agencies such as the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Ward and Smith, P.A.'s intellectual property litigation team offers services including prosecuting and defending patent reexaminations, reissues, and interference cases before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, demonstrating expertise relevant to PTAB proceedings.
Note on IPR Representation: While Gavin B. Parsons and Ward and Smith, P.A. are confirmed to represent ETN Capital, LLC in parallel district court litigation concerning the same patent, direct docket entries specifically naming them as counsel of record for ETN Capital, LLC in IPR2024-01445 were not explicitly found in the publicly available search results.
Defendant representatives
Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).
In IPR2024-01445, the "defendant" equivalent is the Patent Owner, FBA Operating Co.. While the case status is listed as "Settlement," early docket entries indicate that FBA Operating Co. was represented by counsel from Bochner PLLC and initially also served via Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP. Filings by the Patent Owner, including mandatory notices, a power of attorney, a preliminary response, and a preliminary sur-reply, were made via counsel at Bochner PLLC between November and December 2024, and into February 2025.
Despite the explicit mention of firms, specific attorneys representing FBA Operating Co. from Bochner PLLC or Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP in IPR2024-01445 are not individually named in the publicly available snippets of the PTAB docket. The PTAB communicated with "an attorney at Bochner PLLC" regarding defective filings, but no name is provided.
Given the "Settlement" status and the limited information naming individual attorneys in the search results, specific counsel of record cannot be definitively identified at this time beyond the firms.
Therefore, the counsel for FBA Operating Co. (Patent Owner) are:
Firm: Bochner PLLC
- Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results for this case.
- Role: Lead counsel (based on active filings).
- Note: The firm represented the Patent Owner in filing a preliminary response and other documents.
Firm: Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP
- Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results for this case.
- Role: Associated counsel (initial service of petition).
- Note: The petition was initially served on Patent Owner's counsel at this firm, alongside Bochner PLLC.
Without access to the full docket entries or specific appearance filings (e.g., Power of Attorney forms in P-TACTS), individual attorneys cannot be named. Filings are not sealed, but detailed attorney lists for PTAB cases often require direct access to the P-TACTS system or specific documents that are not fully reproduced in generic search snippets.