Beincart LLC v. Amazon.com: Pizza Container Patent Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
Beincart LLC and inventor Hamza Chadli sued Amazon.com and Pizza Pack LLC in the Western District of Washington, asserting two expandable pizza container patents. The case ended not on the merits but on procedural grounds — dismissed without prejudice after 230 days when plaintiff failed to serve the complaint and then failed to respond to the court’s show cause order within the required timeframe.
Procedural failure ends pizza container patent suit before it begins
On July 24, 2024, Beincart LLC and inventor Hamza Chadli filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Case No. 2:24-cv-01116) against Amazon.com, Inc. and Pizza Pack LLC. The suit asserted two U.S. patents — US11738935B1 and US11661260B1 — both covering expandable pizza container technology. The case was assigned to Judge John H. Chun.
The case never reached substantive patent analysis. Plaintiff failed to timely serve the complaint, triggering a January 22, 2025 order to show cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff missed the 10-day response window, later claiming the order arrived 19 days after mailing from Seattle to Sheridan, Wyoming. A subsequent motion for alternative service filed February 18, 2025 cited inapplicable service rules and was denied. The court dismissed the matter without prejudice on March 11, 2025.
The 230-day duration reflects a case that stalled at the threshold service stage rather than proceeding to claim construction or infringement analysis. The dismissal without prejudice technically preserves plaintiff’s right to refile, though any new action would need to address the same service obligations. The public record is silent on whether any licensing discussions occurred or whether a refiling is intended.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 230 days
230 days from filing to dismissal — resolved faster than the median patent case, entirely on procedural grounds
Dismissed without prejudice: what the court’s ruling means for both parties
FRCP 4(m) failure to serve — the procedural trap that ended this case
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of a complaint within 90 days of filing. Plaintiff filed in July 2024 but failed to serve defendants within that window. When ordered to show cause, plaintiff also failed to respond in time and subsequently cited inapplicable service rules (4(e)(1) and 4(f)(3)). The court found no valid basis for alternative service or delay and dismissed. This is a textbook Rule 4(m) dismissal — entirely procedural, with no merits adjudication.
FRCP 4(m) — failure to serveDismissal without prejudice: the case can be refiled — with caveats
A dismissal without prejudice means the court has not ruled on the patent claims’ validity or infringement. Plaintiff retains the legal right to refile a new action asserting the same patents. However, any refiled complaint must comply with service requirements from the outset. Statutes of limitations and any intervening claim bars would apply. The dismissal does not extinguish the patents themselves — US11738935B1 and US11661260B1 remain in force subject to USPTO status.
May refile — no merits rulingAmazon and Pizza Pack exit without any liability finding
Amazon.com and Pizza Pack LLC were never substantively served in a procedurally valid manner and face no infringement finding, no injunction, and no damages award from this proceeding. The dismissal without prejudice does, however, leave open the possibility of a future suit on the same patents. Defendants will likely want to monitor Beincart and Chadli’s patent portfolio for any refiling activity and assess their freedom-to-operate position on expandable pizza container products proactively.
No liability — exposure remains possibleUnresolved patent claims leave product sellers in uncertainty
The underlying patents — covering expandable pizza container technology — were never tested in court. Any seller or manufacturer of comparable products on Amazon’s marketplace or elsewhere cannot rely on this dismissal as a validity or non-infringement finding. The patents remain asserted assets in Beincart’s portfolio. Companies operating in the food packaging and on-demand delivery container space should treat these patents as live enforcement risks until the patents expire or are invalidated through a separate proceeding such as IPR.
Patents remain live enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Beincart LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11738935B1 and US11661260B1 (expandable pizza container)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Hamza Chadli | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | Amazon.com, Inc. — global e-commerce and technology company; co-defendant Pizza Pack LLC is a consumer goods vendorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Pizza Pack LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John H. Chun | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is explicitly procedural: it identifies plaintiff’s failure to comply with FRCP 4(m) as the sole basis for dismissal and rejects the motion for alternative service on the grounds that cited rules were inapplicable. The phrase ‘without prejudice’ is outcome-determinative — no patent claim was construed, no infringement finding was made, and no invalidity ruling was issued. For defendants, the order provides no preclusive effect against future infringement claims on these patents.
US11738935B1 & US11661260B1 — Expandable Pizza Container Technology
US11738935B1 (application no. US17/727683) and US11661260B1 (application no. US18/160279) both cover expandable pizza container technology — a structural innovation in food packaging designed to allow a pizza container to adjust or expand to accommodate different pizza sizes or storage configurations. Both patents are granted U.S. utility patents held by Beincart LLC and inventor Hamza Chadli. The patents represent a niche but commercially relevant segment of the food service packaging market, particularly relevant to the growing on-demand delivery and takeout sector.
The strategic relevance of these patents lies in their assertion against Amazon.com and a co-defendant packaging vendor — suggesting that the patentee believes the technology is being embodied in products sold through major e-commerce channels. For packaging manufacturers, food delivery brands, and Amazon marketplace sellers offering adjustable or multi-size pizza containers, both patents represent active enforcement risk. The absence of any court ruling on validity or infringement means competitors cannot rely on judicial guidance when assessing their FTO position.
Should you run an FTO against US11738935B1 and US11661260B1?
Any company manufacturing, importing, distributing, or selling expandable or adjustable pizza containers — particularly through Amazon or other major e-commerce platforms — should treat these two patents as live risks. The case was dismissed on procedure, not on merits, meaning no court has found the patents invalid or not infringed. Product teams designing collapsible, multi-size, or stackable pizza packaging should conduct a formal FTO review before launch or continued market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of US11738935B1 and US11661260B1 against your product specifications, surface relevant prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and identify related continuation or divisional applications in the Beincart portfolio. Given that no claim construction record exists from this litigation, Eureka’s AI-assisted claim analysis provides the most reliable starting point for understanding exposure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11738935B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in food packaging and e-commerce IP
Explore comparable patent infringement cases involving consumer packaging innovations and e-commerce platform defendants in U.S. district courts, including the Western District of Washington.
What this case signals for the food packaging patent IP landscape
A procedural dismissal leaves the patents untested — and the enforcement risk squarely alive for Amazon sellers and packaging manufacturers.
Rule 4(m) failures are avoidable — and costly when they occur
This dismissal was entirely preventable. Plaintiffs asserting patents against large defendants like Amazon must ensure prompt, documented service. A 90-day service clock begins at filing. Missing it — and then failing to respond to a show cause order — can eliminate months of litigation investment with nothing to show. IP counsel should build service compliance checkpoints into litigation management workflows.
Without-prejudice dismissal is not a clean exit for defendants
Amazon and Pizza Pack avoided liability here, but the underlying patents on expandable pizza containers are unresolved. Any product team selling or distributing comparable packaging via Amazon’s marketplace should conduct a focused FTO review against US11738935B1 and US11661260B1 before treating this case as closed. A refiled complaint with proper service would restart the clock.
Beincart v Amazon.com — key questions answered
The case was dismissed because plaintiff Beincart LLC failed to serve the complaint within the 90-day window required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). When Judge Chun issued an order to show cause on January 22, 2025, plaintiff also failed to respond within the 10-day deadline. A subsequent motion for alternative service cited inapplicable service rules and was denied. The court dismissed without prejudice on March 11, 2025.
Two patents were asserted: US11738935B1 (application no. US17/727683) and US11661260B1 (application no. US18/160279). Both cover expandable pizza container technology. No claim construction or infringement analysis was conducted in this proceeding as the case was dismissed on procedural grounds before substantive proceedings commenced.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling. Beincart LLC may assert the same patents in a new action provided it complies with service requirements under FRCP 4(m) and any applicable statute of limitations. The patents themselves — US11738935B1 and US11661260B1 — remain valid and in force subject to USPTO maintenance requirements.
No. The dismissal was entirely procedural and carries no preclusive effect on the underlying patent claims. No court has ruled on whether any Amazon or Pizza Pack product infringes US11738935B1 or US11661260B1, nor has either patent been found invalid. Companies selling comparable products should not treat this dismissal as a clearance or non-infringement finding.
Plaintiffs were Beincart LLC and inventor Hamza Chadli. Defendants were Amazon.com, Inc. and Pizza Pack LLC. The case was assigned to Judge John H. Chun in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case was filed July 24, 2024 and closed March 11, 2025 after 230 days.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.