Adama Studios & Terra Studio v. Shunchao Tang — Hydroponic Planter Patent Dispute Closed
Adama Studios, LLC and Terra Studio, Ltd. filed suit in the Eastern District of New York against Shunchao Tang, asserting US11576315B2 covering the Tevaplanter® hydroponic planter system. The case closed after 645 days when plaintiffs represented that the defendant had ceased the alleged infringing activity — a resolution without a formal merits ruling.
Infringement Action Over Hydroponic Planter Ends After Defendant Stops Activity
On 1 August 2023, Adama Studios, LLC and Terra Studio, Ltd. filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 2:23-cv-05842) against individual defendant Shunchao Tang. The asserted patent, US11576315B2 (application no. US17/678402), covers the Tevaplanter® hydroponic planter — a vertical hydroponic growing apparatus. The defendant’s competing VertPlanter Product was identified as the accused product.
The case was closed on 7 May 2025, after 645 days of litigation, when the plaintiffs represented to the court that the defendant had stopped the infringing activity. The court issued an order dismissing the case in light of that representation. The public record does not specify whether dismissal was with or without prejudice, leaving open the question of whether the plaintiffs could refile if infringing conduct resumes.
A resolution spanning nearly 22 months without a formal merits judgment suggests the parties likely reached an informal accommodation — whether through a licensing arrangement, a cease-and-desist compliance, or negotiated agreement — though none of those terms are confirmed in the public record. The absence of a formal settlement agreement or costs order is consistent with a practical resolution driven by the defendant’s behavioral change rather than a contested adjudication.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 645 days
645 days from filing to closure — longer than the median voluntary resolution in E.D.N.Y. patent cases
Case dismissed: what the court’s order means for both parties
Dismissal based on defendant’s cessation of infringing activity
The court closed the case following the plaintiffs’ representation that the defendant had stopped the alleged infringing conduct. This is an administrative closure rather than a contested merits ruling — no court found infringement or invalidity. Critically, the public record is silent on whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, which materially affects the plaintiffs’ ability to refile.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal with prejudice bars the plaintiff from refiling the same claims — it operates as a final judgment on the merits. A dismissal without prejudice preserves the right to refile if infringing conduct resumes. The court’s order here does not specify which applies. Practitioners should treat this distinction as legally significant: if the defendant resumes selling the VertPlanter Product, the prejudice status will determine whether a new action is available.
Prejudice status unconfirmedPlaintiffs achieved behavioral change without a court order
Adama Studios and Terra Studio obtained their primary commercial objective — cessation of the allegedly infringing VertPlanter sales — without proceeding to trial or summary judgment. US11576315B2 was never adjudicated invalid or unenforceable, preserving its full enforceability for future actions against other potential infringers. No damages or royalties are confirmed from the public record.
Patent validity preservedDefendant exits litigation by ceasing product activity
Shunchao Tang avoided an adverse merits judgment by discontinuing the VertPlanter Product, which prompted the plaintiffs to seek dismissal. No finding of infringement was entered against the defendant in the public record. However, the patent remains in force and enforceable — any resumption of the accused product line would likely trigger further enforcement action, potentially with prejudice implications depending on the dismissal type.
No infringement finding enteredFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Adama Studios, LLC | Company | Hydroponic planter IP holders — asserting US11576315B2 covering the Tevaplanter® systemSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Terra Studio, Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Shunchao Tang | Individual | Individual defendant Shunchao Tang, alleged maker/seller of the competing VertPlanter ProductSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Efrem Tobias Schwalb | Attorney | Counsel for Adama Studios, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tal S. Benschar | Attorney | Counsel for Adama Studios, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Koffsky Schwalb, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Adama Studios, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New York Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is notably brief: it closes the case solely on the basis of the plaintiffs’ representation that infringing activity had ceased — with no factual findings, claim construction, or merits analysis. This phrasing confirms the dismissal is court-ordered rather than purely stipulated, but it does not resolve the prejudice question. For practitioners, the operative risk is that ‘case closed’ does not equate to ‘matter resolved’ — the enforceability of US11576315B2 and the defendant’s future conduct remain the live variables.
US11576315B2 — Tevaplanter® Hydroponic Planter System
US11576315B2, filed under application number US17/678402, covers the Tevaplanter® hydroponic planter — a vertical growing apparatus designed for soil-free, water-efficient plant cultivation. The patent sits within the controlled-environment agriculture (CEA) and consumer horticultural equipment space. Its grant reflects recognition of novel structural or functional elements in the planter’s design that distinguish it from prior art hydroponic systems. The specific claim scope has not been adjudicated in this case, leaving the full breadth of protection intact.
Strategically, US11576315B2 represents an IP asset in a sector experiencing rapid commercial growth — vertical farming, hydroponic home gardening, and CEA products are attracting significant investment and competitive product development. The patent’s survival through this litigation without challenge means no narrowing of claims has occurred. For competitors developing modular or vertical hydroponic systems, this patent is a primary FTO concern. The VertPlanter Product’s removal from market following the filing suggests the claims are broadly perceived as a credible barrier to entry.
Should you run an FTO against US11576315B2 before launching a hydroponic planter?
Any company or individual developing, importing, or selling vertical hydroponic planter systems — particularly modular growing apparatus targeting consumer or commercial markets — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US11576315B2. The patent’s claims have not been litigated to a merits ruling, meaning no claim narrowing, prosecution history estoppel from litigation, or invalidity finding is available to rely on. The VertPlanter Product’s market exit suggests the claim scope is broad enough to capture commercially realistic competing designs.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map the claim scope of US11576315B2 against proposed product configurations, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition if needed, and monitor the patent’s forward citation landscape for related family members. Given that this patent exited litigation with enforceability intact, running an automated FTO analysis before commercial launch is a low-cost, high-value risk management step for any player in the hydroponic or vertical growing equipment market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11576315B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Hydroponic & AgTech Patent Infringement Cases in U.S. District Courts
Cases involving hydroponic planter and vertical growing system patents litigated in U.S. district courts, including the Eastern District of New York.
What this case signals for the hydroponic and AgTech IP landscape
Individual enforcement actions over patented growing systems are rising — this case illustrates how IP holders can achieve market outcomes without full litigation.
Patent enforcement against individual sellers is commercially viable
Adama Studios and Terra Studio demonstrated that filing against an individual defendant over a consumer horticultural product can produce market results. The defendant’s exit from the product category — without litigation reaching trial — suggests the filing itself created sufficient deterrence. IP holders in the hydroponic and vertical farming sector should note this as a viable enforcement pathway.
US11576315B2 remains fully enforceable after dismissal
Because the case closed without any invalidity or non-infringement ruling, the Tevaplanter® patent exits this litigation with its enforceability intact. Competitors in the hydroponic planter market — particularly those offering vertical growing systems — should treat this patent as an active risk and assess their product designs accordingly.
Adama v Shunchao — key questions answered
The case was dismissed on 7 May 2025 after the plaintiffs represented that the defendant had ceased the allegedly infringing activity. The court issued an order closing the case. The public record does not specify whether dismissal was with or without prejudice. No merits ruling, damages award, or infringement finding was entered.
The asserted patent is US11576315B2, filed under application no. US17/678402. It covers the Tevaplanter® hydroponic planter — a vertical, soil-free growing apparatus. The accused product was the defendant’s VertPlanter Product. The patent’s claims were not construed or adjudicated during the case.
Yes. Because the case was dismissed without any invalidity, unenforceability, or non-infringement finding, US11576315B2 exits the litigation with its full enforceability intact. Patent holders retain the right to assert it against other parties. Competitors should not treat this dismissal as any indication that the patent is vulnerable.
The public record is silent on this point. The court’s order closes the case based on the plaintiffs’ representation that infringing activity had stopped, but does not specify the prejudice status. This is a material distinction: dismissal without prejudice would allow refiling if infringing conduct resumes; dismissal with prejudice would bar it.
The VertPlanter Product is identified as the accused infringing article in the complaint. It is described as a competing hydroponic planter product. The defendant, Shunchao Tang, is an individual rather than a corporate entity. The defendant reportedly ceased selling or distributing the VertPlanter Product, which led to the case being closed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.