Anova v. Perch: Voluntary Dismissal in Sous Vide Patent Dispute
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Anova Applied Electronics, Inc. v. Perch Acquisition Co 1, LLC |
| Case Number | 2:23-cv-00843 (W.D. Wash.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Duration | June 6, 2023 – July 15, 2024 405 days (1 year 1 month) |
| Outcome | Voluntary Dismissal (without prejudice) |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Sous Vide Circulator Cookers |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Leading manufacturer in the precision cooking and smart kitchen appliance market, best known for its Anova Precision Cooker sous vide devices. Anova actively enforces its patents.
🛡️ Defendant
U.S.-based e-commerce aggregator company acquiring and operating Amazon marketplace brands. Perch ultimately settled with Anova and was voluntarily dismissed prior to the final case closure.
Patents at Issue
This landmark case involved reissue patent USRE049267E covering a circulator cooker with alarm system — the technology behind sous vide precision cooking devices. Reissue patents are obtained through USPTO reissue proceedings to correct defects in originally issued patents, often broadening or clarifying claims.
- • USRE049267E — Circulator cooker with alarm system
Developing a sous vide device?
Check if your circulator cooker design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
On July 15, 2024, Anova filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) as to the remaining foreign defendants — Makarov Dmytro, Voloshyna Iryna, Lekoza, Garnease, Upesitom, and Caukins. No damages award was entered. No injunctive relief was issued against the foreign defendants. The dismissal was explicitly without prejudice, preserving Anova’s right to refile claims against these parties in the future.
Notably, the two U.S.-nexus defendants — Perch Acquisition and Wedge and Wagon — settled with Anova on undisclosed terms and were dismissed by stipulation earlier in the litigation. Specific settlement amounts were not disclosed in the public record.
Key Legal Issues
The case never reached claim construction, summary judgment, or trial on the merits. The dispositive procedural obstacle was Hague Convention service compliance. China and Ukraine are both signatories to the Hague Service Convention, which requires formal diplomatic channels for service of foreign process — a process that can take twelve to twenty-four months or longer, and which foreign defendants can effectively slow by non-cooperation.
Anova’s motion for alternative service — a mechanism U.S. courts sometimes permit to circumvent Hague Convention delays under Rule 4(f)(3) — was denied by the court. Federal courts are split on whether alternative service is permissible when a defendant resides in a Hague Convention signatory country that has objected to certain service methods. The Western District’s denial here aligned with the more restrictive judicial interpretation that treaty procedures must be exhausted or completed before alternative methods are authorized.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis in Sous Vide
This case highlights critical IP risks in sous vide circulator cooker design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in sous vide patents
- Understand patent claim scope and validity
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
Hague Convention Obstacles
Challenges with international service
1 Patent at Issue
USRE049267E
Alternative enforcement options
ITC Section 337 actions viable
✅ Key Takeaways
Hague Convention service timelines on Chinese and Ukrainian defendants can exceed litigation viability windows; evaluate ITC Section 337 as a parallel or primary enforcement vehicle.
Explore ITC 337 cases →Courts in the Western District of Washington have applied restrictive interpretations of Rule 4(f)(3) alternative service where Hague Convention signatory status is established. Voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) preserves future enforcement optionality when procedural obstacles – not merits weaknesses – drive case termination.
Search case precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved reissue patent USRE049267E (corrected application US16/913418), covering a circulator cooker with alarm system — technology applicable to sous vide precision cooking appliances.
Anova dismissed the action without prejudice because foreign defendants exploited Hague Convention service timelines, refused correspondence, and the court denied alternative service requests, making judgment against those parties practically unattainable.
The case reinforces the strategic advantage of ITC Section 337 actions for import-based infringement, where jurisdiction over goods rather than persons avoids individual service obstacles entirely.
The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents is an international treaty that governs how legal documents are served in foreign countries. In Anova v. Perch, foreign defendants exploited its formal diplomatic channels and lengthy timelines, making service difficult and ultimately leading to the voluntary dismissal against them.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States Patent RE049267E
- PACER – Western District of Washington – Case No. 2:23-cv-00843
- Hague Conference on Private International Law – Service Convention
- Cornell Legal Information Institute – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.