Bath & Body Works v. Health & Beyond: Design Patent Suit Dismissed After 218 Days
Bath & Body Works, LLC and Bath & Body Works Brand Management, Inc. sued Chinese health and beauty manufacturer Health & Beyond Health Technology (Suzhou) Co. Ltd. in the Southern District of Ohio, asserting five design patents covering gel hand sanitizer bottles, silicone holders, body lotion, and shower gel packaging. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice after 218 days, leaving the door open for future proceedings.
Five Design Patents, One Chinese Manufacturer, and an Open-Ended Exit
On 3 October 2024, Bath & Body Works, LLC and Bath & Body Works Brand Management, Inc. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Health & Beyond Health Technology (Suzhou) Co. Ltd., a Chinese personal care goods manufacturer operating under the trade name ‘Health & Beyond’. The complaint alleged infringement of five U.S. design patents — USD779943S, USD780580S, USD779945S, USD718143S, and USD752442S — protecting the ornamental appearance of gel antibacterial hand sanitizer bottles (1 oz.), silicone holder accessories, body lotion bottles (8 oz.), and shower gel bottles (8 oz.).
The case closed on 9 May 2025 when plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss unilaterally before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because no answer or responsive pleading appears in the public record for the defendant, this procedural avenue was available without court approval. The without-prejudice designation means that Bath & Body Works retains the right to re-file the same claims against the same defendant.
A resolution of 218 days without any substantive court ruling is consistent with pre-trial settlement, a licensing arrangement, or a decision by the plaintiff to pause and reassess enforcement strategy. No terms have been publicly disclosed. Notably, defendant Health & Beyond had no recorded legal representation in the case, which may suggest the defendant did not appear — a dynamic that sometimes precedes default judgment proceedings but here ended differently. The public record does not reveal what, if anything, changed between filing and dismissal.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 218 days
218 days from filing to voluntary dismissal — below the median district court patent case lifecycle
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal — no court order required
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action as of right by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The public docket shows no recorded defendant representation or responsive pleading, making this route procedurally available. The dismissal is self-executing — it requires no judicial approval and carries no merits finding.
Procedural exit — no merits rulingWithout prejudice: the case can be re-filed — but was it settled?
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to re-file identical claims against the same defendant. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would extinguish those claims permanently. The public record in this case explicitly states ‘without prejudice’, so Bath & Body Works retains full enforcement optionality. However, the record is entirely silent on whether a private settlement, licensing deal, or cease-and-desist compliance drove the dismissal — these are equally plausible explanations.
Re-filing rights preservedBath & Body Works exits with enforcement options intact
By dismissing without prejudice, Bath & Body Works avoids any adverse precedent on its five design patents while preserving the ability to re-assert them if the defendant resumes or continues allegedly infringing conduct. The five asserted design patents remain in force and fully enforceable. If a private resolution was reached, its terms are not public, meaning competitors cannot determine whether a royalty, design-around, or supply restriction was agreed.
Patents remain enforceableHealth & Beyond faces no judgment — but litigation risk persists
Health & Beyond exits this proceeding without a finding of infringement or any damages award. No defence costs order was entered. However, without-prejudice status means the threat of re-filing remains live. Companies in the personal care import and e-commerce space that produce look-alike hand sanitizer or body care packaging should note that Bath & Body Works has demonstrated willingness to litigate design patent rights in U.S. federal court against Chinese manufacturers.
No judgment — re-filing risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bath & Body Works, LLC | Company | Personal care brand and IP holding entity — holder of USD779943S and 4 further design patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Bath & Body Works Brand Management, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Health & Beyond Health Technology (Suzhou) Co. Ltd. | Company | Chinese personal care goods manufacturer — Health & Beyond Health Technology (Suzhou) Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Beverly Ann Marsh | Attorney | Counsel for Bath & Body Works, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Standley Law Group LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bath & Body Works, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Ohio Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly designates the dismissal as ‘without prejudice’, meaning no adjudication on the merits of design patent infringement was made. The absence of a defendant answer or motion in the record confirms the procedural prerequisites were met. The phrasing leaves all five asserted design patents fully enforceable and the plaintiff’s claims legally viable against this defendant — or successors — should circumstances warrant re-filing.
USD779943S and 4 further design patents — gel hand sanitizer and body care packaging
The five asserted patents — USD779943S (App. No. 29/524814), USD780580S (App. No. 29/524813), USD779945S (App. No. 29/524822), USD718143S (App. No. 29/465353), and USD752442S (App. No. 29/493400) — are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of personal care product packaging. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the novel, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture. The spread of application numbers suggests staggered prosecution across multiple product generations and SKUs, building layered coverage over Bath & Body Works’ hand sanitizer and body care product portfolio.
Design patents in the personal care and beauty sector are commercially significant because consumer purchasing decisions are heavily influenced by packaging aesthetics. A competitor or OEM that replicates the distinctive bottle silhouette, cap profile, or accessory holder design of a market-leading brand risks infringement even if the product formulation differs entirely. Bath & Body Works’ decision to assert five patents simultaneously — spanning both sanitizer and broader body care formats — suggests the company views its packaging aesthetic as a core brand asset worthy of aggressive IP protection, particularly against lower-cost imports.
Should your team run an FTO against USD779943S and the Bath & Body Works design patent cluster?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing gel hand sanitizer bottles, silicone accessories, or 8 oz. body lotion or shower gel containers in formats that resemble Bath & Body Works’ product line should treat these five design patents as live enforcement risks. The without-prejudice dismissal means the patents have not been invalidated or licensed on public terms. R&D and packaging design teams developing products in this category — particularly those sourcing from Chinese OEM suppliers — should conduct a design patent FTO before committing to a packaging format.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of each of the five asserted design patents, identify prior art that may constrain enforcement, and surface related design patent families filed by Bath & Body Works. Because design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test, even minor packaging similarities can trigger exposure. Eureka allows your team to compare product imagery against patent drawings, flag conflicting filings, and generate an FTO report that documents your clearance analysis — a critical record if litigation risk materialises.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0779943S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in personal care and beauty packaging
Cases involving design patent assertions over personal care product packaging in U.S. district courts, including comparable cross-border enforcement actions against Chinese manufacturers.
What this case signals for the personal care and beauty packaging IP landscape
Bath & Body Works’ assertion of five design patents against a Chinese OEM signals an active, broad approach to protecting ornamental trade dress in personal care.
Design patents are live enforcement tools in personal care packaging
Bath & Body Works asserted five design patents in a single action — covering multiple SKUs from 1 oz. sanitizer bottles to 8 oz. lotion and shower gel. This portfolio-level assertion against a single manufacturer suggests a deliberate strategy to cover the full product range, making design-around more difficult and reinforcing the commercial value of ornamental packaging IP.
Without-prejudice dismissal against a non-appearing defendant warrants monitoring
Health & Beyond had no recorded counsel and filed no response. The plaintiff’s voluntary exit in this context typically signals one of three things: a private resolution was reached, the plaintiff chose to pursue other enforcement channels, or the defendant ceased the relevant conduct. Any of these outcomes leaves the underlying IP asserted but untested — a status that creates ongoing uncertainty for third-party importers of similar products.
Bath v Health — key questions answered
Bath & Body Works asserted five U.S. design patents: USD779943S, USD780580S, USD779945S, USD718143S, and USD752442S. These patents protect the ornamental appearance of gel antibacterial hand sanitizer bottles (1 oz.), sanitizer bottles with silicone holders, body lotion bottles (8 oz.), and shower gel bottles (8 oz.).
The plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss unilaterally before the defendant has served an answer. The dismissal was designated ‘without prejudice’, preserving Bath & Body Works’ right to re-file. The public record does not disclose whether the dismissal followed a settlement, licensing agreement, or other resolution.
No. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice carries no merits adjudication. All five asserted design patents — USD779943S, USD780580S, USD779945S, USD718143S, and USD752442S — remain in force and enforceable. Bath & Body Works retains the right to assert them in future proceedings against the same or different defendants.
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means the plaintiff may re-file identical claims in the future. It is distinguished from a dismissal ‘with prejudice’, which would permanently bar the same claims under res judicata. In patent cases, without-prejudice dismissals are common outcomes of pre-trial settlements, licensing negotiations, or strategic pauses — none of which need be disclosed publicly.
The dispute involved gel antibacterial hand sanitizers in 1 oz. format, gel antibacterial hand sanitizers with silicone holders in 1 oz. format, body lotion in 8 oz. format, and shower gel in 8 oz. format. The patents at issue protect the ornamental appearance — not the formulation — of these product categories.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.