Togy Trading v. Domesick: Voluntary Dismissal in E-Commerce Patent Case

Updated on Dec. 2, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team

Introduction

A patent infringement action brought by Togy Trading Co., Limited, operating under the brand Zoomsnail, against Michael Domesick and AbMill ended in August 2025 when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice. Filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Case No. 3:25-cv-01833 lasted approximately 47 days before termination.

This swift dismissal raises strategic questions for professionals monitoring patent litigation trends in the e-commerce and consumer product spaces.

Case Summary

Case Overview

The Parties

Plaintiff Togy Trading Co., Limited (doing business as Zoomsnail) initiated this action as the assignee of the asserted patent. The company is based in Hong Kong.

Defendants Michael Domesick and AbMill were accused of infringing the plaintiff’s patent. AbMill is believed to be a business entity associated with Mr. Domesick.

The Patent at Issue

The case centered on U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364 B2, titled “Plank Exercise Apparatus.” The patent details an exercise device and was issued to inventor Michael Domesick and assigned to Togy Trading Co., Limited. The patent document can be reviewed via the USPTO Patent Full-Text Database.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff’s Counsel: The law firm Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC represented Togy Trading.

Defendant’s Counsel: No attorney made a formal appearance for the defendants on the docket before the case was dismissed.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

• July 11, 2025: Complaint filed.
• Pre-Answer Phase: The defendants did not file an answer or other responsive pleading.
• August 27, 2025: Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice.
• Total Duration: 47 days from filing to dismissal.

The case concluded before any substantive proceedings, such as claim construction briefing or discovery, could begin.

Procedural Note: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff has the right to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This provides significant strategic flexibility in the early stages of litigation.

Outcome & Legal Analysis

Outcome

On August 27, 2025, Togy Trading voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice against both defendants. A dismissal “without prejudice” means the plaintiff is not barred from refiling the same claims at a later date, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.

Analysis of the Dismissal

The case terminated without any judicial determination on the merits. The court did not rule on issues of patent validity, claim construction, or infringement.

Possible reasons for an early voluntary dismissal include, but are not limited to:

• The parties reaching a private settlement agreement.
• A strategic decision by the plaintiff to re-evaluate its enforcement approach.
• The defendant agreeing to cease the challenged activity.
• Practical considerations regarding litigation costs versus potential recovery.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Holders:

• Filing a lawsuit can serve as a strong signal of enforcement intent, even if the case does not proceed to judgment.
• Utilizing Rule 41 to dismiss without prejudice preserves all legal options for future enforcement, maintaining leverage.
• Early resolution can significantly reduce legal costs.

For Alleged Infringers:

• A dismissal without prejudice does not equate to a victory on the merits and leaves open the possibility of the dispute resurfacing.
• The absence of a formal answer can allow for resolution without the defendant having to formally articulate its legal positions.

For R&D and Product Teams:

• Monitoring litigation patterns, including short-lived cases, can provide insight into competitor enforcement strategies.
• Freedom-to-operate analyses should consider patents that are actively being asserted, regardless of how individual cases conclude.

Industry & Competitive Implications

This brief case reflects a common dynamic in intellectual property enforcement, particularly for consumer goods sold online. Patent holders may file suits to initiate contact and negotiation, with dismissal following a swift, private resolution. Such patterns highlight that the public docket may not fully reflect the scope of patent enforcement and licensing activities occurring outside of court.

Market participants in related product categories may wish to review the scope of U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364 B2 as part of their competitive landscape analysis.

Key Takeaways

• The Federal Rules provide a mechanism for plaintiffs to retain control over early case dismissal, preserving future claims.
• A dismissal without prejudice is a procedural outcome, not a decision on the merits of infringement or validity.
• Short-lived patent cases often indicate settlement or strategic recalibration, underscoring the importance of understanding the full context behind docket entries.
• Legal professionals should verify patent assignment records through the USPTO Assignment Database to confirm ownership at the time of litigation.

FAQ

What patent was involved in this case?
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364 B2, titled “Plank Exercise Apparatus.”

Why was the case dismissed?
The plaintiff, Togy Trading Co., Limited, chose to voluntarily dismiss its own lawsuit without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 before the defendants filed a response.

Can Togy Trading refile this lawsuit?
Yes. Because the dismissal was “without prejudice,” the plaintiff is generally permitted to refile the lawsuit at a later date, barring any applicable statute of limitations.

Resources:

• USPTO Patent Full-Text Database
• USPTO Assignment Database
• PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records)
• Cornell LII: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis is based on public records and should not be relied upon for making legal decisions. Readers should consult with qualified legal counsel for advice on specific legal matters. Case details are subject to change, and the most accurate information can be obtained from official court records via PACER.