Primus EtaSolo stove lawsuit by Jetboil dismissed

1:19 p.m. on May 6, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
291 forum posts

This thread is for comments on the article "Primus EtaSolo stove lawsuit by Jetboil dismissed"

Last year, Jetboil filed a complaint alleging that Primus infringed a number of U.S. patents by making and selling the EtaSolo stove. On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware entered an order dismissing—with prejudice—the action.

Full article at

4:55 p.m. on May 6, 2011 (EDT)
157 reviewer rep
69 forum posts

Very Interesting..........

7:15 p.m. on May 16, 2011 (EDT)
8 reviewer rep
1 forum posts



1:01 a.m. on May 17, 2011 (EDT)
81 reviewer rep
426 forum posts

What does that mean "with prejudice?"  I've not heard that term before.


8:31 a.m. on May 17, 2011 (EDT)
848 reviewer rep
3,899 forum posts

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe it means Jetboil can't refile the same claim again later.

Here's what I found on the New York State Law Libraries glossary:

dismissal with prejudice: Action dismissed on the merits which prevents renewal of the same claim or cause of action.

dismissal without prejudice: Action dismissed, not on the merits, which may be re-instituted.

From Wikipedia:

Within legal civil procedure, prejudice is a loss or injury, and refers specifically to a formal determination against a claimed legal right or cause of action.[1] Thus, in a civil case, dismissal without prejudice is a dismissal that allows for re-filing of the case in the future. The present action is dismissed but the possibility remains open that the plaintiff may file another suit on the same claim. The inverse phrase is dismissal with prejudice, in which the plaintiff is barred from filing another case on the same claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it; dismissal without prejudice is not.

8:50 a.m. on May 17, 2011 (EDT)
775 reviewer rep
2,162 forum posts


It means "Your'e an idiot for bringing suit in the first place." 


10:28 a.m. on May 17, 2011 (EDT)
848 reviewer rep
3,899 forum posts

Here is Jetboil's follow-up statement/release:

Responding to public comments and media reports concerning Jetboil, Incorporated’s recent decision to discontinue prosecution of its suit in Delaware court against Primus and Brunton for patent infringement, Jetboil President and CEO Perry Dowst said:

“While this decision in no way reflects a change in our opinion regarding the validity of this suit, nor did it represent either implied or in fact an opinion of the court, in this case we have concluded that the costs in bringing the legal matter to a judgment would be better committed toward Jetboil’s continuing innovation and category leadership in providing outdoor enthusiasts with products and ground breaking technology that enable and enhance their experiences. We believe our decision in this case benefits the industry and our end users.”

Dowst also said, “Jetboil is continuing prosecution and infringement actions globally in separate cases involving its global patents and intellectual property, and will continue to protect and uphold its intellectual  property where it deems appropriate and necessary.”

12:57 p.m. on May 21, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
1 forum posts

Good thing for Jetboil that the Primus is a hunk-of-junk. When I saw it at a outdoor trade show it looked like a make-your-own-gear first try. Not a poduct that actually made it past quality control. Now that a number of online reviews are coming out it seems my visual assumption was right. Many things are wrong with the ETA solo. That's too bad because I have many Primus products that I would highly recommend to others.

To knock another's idea and make it better is one thing, but to do it poorly is quite another.


2:38 p.m. on June 8, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
4 forum posts

"It means 'Your'e an idiot for bringing suit in the first place.' " -- Gonzan

Nope.  At least not in this context:

"Jetboil agreed to dismiss its complaint with prejudice, and Primus agreed to dismiss their counterclaims." 

 "nor did it represent either implied or in fact an opinion of the court"

That means that the judge was just approving the agreement, aka "settlement".

Very likely, somebody paid somebody something, which nobody is obligated to disclose to anybody.

May 27, 2018
Quick Reply

Please sign in to reply

More Topics
This forum: Older: Hi-Tec Petitions for Liquid Mountaineering in Olympics Newer: (Re)Discovering Old Trails
All forums: Older: Doing as much of the AT as I can!! Newer: Sierra Designs Clip Flashlight tent