Autostoa LLC v. Prowinch LLC — Design Patent Suit Dropped in 24 Days
Autostoa LLC filed a design patent infringement action against Prowinch LLC in the Central District of California on December 6, 2024, asserting U.S. Design Patent USD985519S against three Prowinch products listed on Amazon. The case lasted just 24 days before Autostoa voluntarily dismissed its complaint without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, before Prowinch had filed any answer or responsive motion.
A 24-Day Design Patent Filing That Ended Before It Began
Autostoa LLC, holder of U.S. Design Patent USD985519S (application no. US29/805633), filed suit against Prowinch LLC in the Central District of California on December 6, 2024, alleging infringement across three Amazon-listed products identified by ASINs B07X3KPCV5, B07WPPV8TL8, and B07X1KG165. The case was assigned to the court under case number 2:24-cv-10519 and represented on the plaintiff side by Michael F. Heafey of Rimon PC. No defendant law firm or agent entered an appearance on the public record.
On December 30, 2024 — just 24 days after filing — Autostoa filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Prowinch had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, Autostoa was entitled to dismiss as of right, without requiring a court order. The dismissal is explicitly recorded as without prejudice, meaning Autostoa retains the legal right to refile claims on the same patent against the same or other defendants in a future action.
The 24-day duration is notably brief, suggesting the dismissal may have been driven by early settlement discussions, a licensing agreement, a decision to reconsider litigation strategy, or identification of a procedural or substantive issue — though the public record is entirely silent on the underlying reason. No merits determination was reached, no claim construction occurred, and no findings were made regarding the validity or infringement of USD985519S. The without-prejudice status leaves the legal dispute formally unresolved.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 24 days
24 days — well below the median district court IP case duration of several years
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41 without prejudice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court order needed
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss its complaint without a court order simply by filing a notice, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Prowinch had done neither, so Autostoa’s dismissal was automatic upon filing. The court’s role was purely ministerial — confirming the procedural prerequisites were met.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the case is closed, but not permanently
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar Autostoa from refiling the same claims. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), the dismissal is without prejudice unless the notice itself states otherwise, and Autostoa explicitly stated ‘without prejudice.’ This contrasts with a dismissal with prejudice, which would function as a final adjudication on the merits. The public record does not disclose why Autostoa chose this path — settlement, licensing, or strategic reassessment are all consistent with this outcome.
Refiling remains possibleAutostoa preserves all options — for now
By dismissing without prejudice, Autostoa retains its design patent rights and the ability to refile against Prowinch or any other party it believes infringes USD985519S. However, a ‘second dismissal’ rule under Rule 41(a)(1)(B) may apply if Autostoa previously dismissed a claim based on the same patent — a second voluntary dismissal would operate as an adjudication on the merits. The public record does not reveal any prior dismissal of related claims.
Patent rights intactProwinch escapes without a ruling — but risk is not eliminated
Prowinch faced no merits determination and incurred no costs ruling or adverse judgment. Its Amazon-listed products remain on the market without a court finding of infringement or non-infringement. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, Prowinch cannot treat this closure as a final resolution. If Autostoa refiles, Prowinch will need to respond on the merits — and the prior filing demonstrates that Autostoa is monitoring the market for potential design patent infringement.
Exposure not extinguishedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Autostoa LLC | Company | Design patent holder asserting USD985519S — holder of U.S. Design Patent USD985519SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Prowinch LLC | Company | Prowinch LLC — seller of Amazon-listed products accused of infringing the asserted design patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael F. Heafey | Attorney | Counsel for Autostoa LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rimon PC | Law Firm | Representing Autostoa LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) in precise terms, confirming the procedural prerequisites — no answer, no summary judgment motion — were satisfied. The explicit statement of ‘without prejudice’ in the notice, and the court’s citation of Rule 41(a)(1)(B), means this closure carries no preclusive effect. No infringement finding, no validity ruling, and no claim construction was recorded. Both parties’ legal positions with respect to USD985519S remain formally open.
USD985519S — U.S. Design Patent, Application No. US29/805633
USD985519S is a U.S. design patent registered under application number US29/805633. Design patents protect the ornamental or aesthetic appearance of an article of manufacture — not its functional utility. Infringement of a design patent is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design. The three Amazon ASINs accused here suggest the asserted design covers a specific visual form factor in the consumer product space.
Design patents on consumer goods sold through Amazon represent a strategically important and commercially active category of IP enforcement. A single design registration can be asserted against numerous competing listings simultaneously. For competitors operating in the same product category as Prowinch — particularly those selling visually similar goods through Amazon — USD985519S represents a live enforcement risk until either a final merits determination is reached or the patent expires. The without-prejudice dismissal does nothing to diminish the patent’s enforceability.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD985519S?
Any company selling consumer products visually similar to those targeted by USD985519S — especially through Amazon — should consider a freedom-to-operate review. The three ASINs named in this suit indicate a specific product form factor is at issue. If your catalogue includes products in the same visual category, the ordinary observer test means even non-identical designs can face infringement exposure. This is especially relevant for Amazon sellers, importers, and OEM suppliers in the accused product category.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables rapid design patent clearance by mapping your product images and design characteristics against active U.S. design patent portfolios, including USD985519S. Eureka can identify visual similarity risks across registered designs, flag related applications by the same applicant, and surface prior art that could support a design patent invalidity argument — giving R&D and product teams actionable intelligence before a product reaches market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0985519S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Infringement Cases in C.D. California
Explore comparable U.S. design patent infringement actions filed in the Central District of California, particularly cases involving Amazon-listed consumer product ASINs and Rule 41 early dismissals.
What this case signals for the design patent enforcement IP landscape
Ultra-short-lived Amazon design patent suits are a recognized enforcement pattern — this case fits the profile and warrants attention.
Design patent suits on Amazon ASINs often resolve before an answer is filed
Cases asserting design patents against Amazon sellers are commonly filed to prompt rapid commercial resolution — licensing, de-listing, or settlement — rather than full litigation. The 24-day duration and without-prejudice dismissal here are consistent with that pattern. Product teams and Amazon sellers in adjacent categories should take note.
Without-prejudice dismissal is not a clean exit for either party
Autostoa retains its right to refile. Prowinch’s accused ASINs remain live without a finding of non-infringement. Any competitor or buyer operating in the same product category should assess whether their designs could face a similar claim, and whether a freedom-to-operate analysis against USD985519S is warranted.
Autostoa v Prowinch — key questions answered
It means Autostoa chose to end the case before Prowinch filed any answer, using Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because the notice states ‘without prejudice,’ no merits determination was made and Autostoa retains the right to refile the same design patent claims against Prowinch or others in a future action. Prowinch received no finding of non-infringement.
U.S. Design Patent USD985519S (application number US29/805633) was the sole patent asserted. Three Amazon product listings — ASINs B07X3KPCV5, B07WPPV8TL8, and B07X1KG165 — were identified as the accused products in the complaint filed December 6, 2024.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not bar refiling. However, if Autostoa has previously voluntarily dismissed claims on the same patent against the same defendant in a prior action, Rule 41(a)(1)(B)’s ‘two-dismissal rule’ could convert a second dismissal into an adjudication on the merits, permanently barring re-litigation on those claims.
Common reasons include early settlement or licensing resolution, a decision to reassess litigation strategy after filing, identification of a procedural or substantive issue with the complaint, or a negotiated commercial resolution (such as product de-listing). The public record in this case is silent on the reason. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal suggests Autostoa did not consider the dispute permanently resolved.
The ordinary observer test, established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, asks whether an ordinary observer familiar with prior art designs would be deceived into thinking an accused product is the same as the patented design. For USD985519S, this would require comparing the ornamental features of the accused Amazon-listed products against the claimed design drawing. No such analysis was conducted in this case before dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.