BL Patents v. AD-N-ART: Cold Brew Patent Suit Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
BL Patents, LLC asserted three U.S. patents covering cold brew portable brewer technology against AD-N-ART, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The parties resolved the dispute privately and secured a court-retained settlement before dismissal with prejudice — all within 114 days of filing.
Three Cold Brew Patents, One Swift Settlement in West Texas
On February 11, 2025, BL Patents, LLC filed suit against AD-N-ART, Inc. in the Western District of Texas before Judge David Alan Ezra, asserting infringement of three U.S. patents — US11659952B2, US10231566B2, and US9999314B1 — all directed to cold brew portable brewer technology, specifically products such as the KB-900. The case was docketed as No. 6:25-cv-00044 and represented an infringement action targeting what appears to be a direct competitor or distributor in the cold brew beverage equipment market.
The case closed on June 5, 2025, just 114 days after filing, when BL Patents announced to the Court that the parties had reached a private resolution. Plaintiff moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice, with each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court granted the dismissal and expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement — a standard mechanism that keeps the settlement terms judicially enforceable without making them part of the public record.
A resolution in under four months is notably swift for multi-patent district court litigation, suggesting the parties may have reached a licensing or commercial arrangement early in discovery. The specific settlement terms remain confidential. What the public record does confirm is that dismissal with prejudice forecloses BL Patents from refiling the same claims against AD-N-ART on these three patents, lending finality to the outcome regardless of the underlying commercial terms.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 114 days
114 days from filing to dismissal — well below the district court median for patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the settlement-driven dismissal means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars refiling on these patents
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes. BL Patents cannot refile the same infringement claims against AD-N-ART based on US11659952B2, US10231566B2, or US9999314B1 arising from the same accused products. The Court’s retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement adds a further layer — any breach of settlement terms can be adjudicated without a new lawsuit.
No refiling permittedBL Patents secures enforceable resolution without full trial risk
By settling before substantive motions were decided, BL Patents avoided the risk of an adverse claim construction or invalidity ruling that could have weakened all three patents against other potential infringers. The dismissal with prejudice and court-retained jurisdiction suggests BL Patents obtained binding commitments from AD-N-ART — likely a license or royalty arrangement — while preserving the patents’ enforceability against third parties.
Patents remain intactAD-N-ART avoids invalidity fight but accepts final bar on these claims
AD-N-ART secured closure without a public finding of infringement, which protects its commercial reputation. However, the with-prejudice dismissal means the settlement terms — likely a license or design-around agreement — are binding. The court’s retained jurisdiction means BL Patents can return to enforce those terms without re-litigating jurisdiction. AD-N-ART carries no public adverse judgment but is bound by whatever private commitments it made.
No public infringement findingCold brew equipment makers should treat these patents as active licensing risk
The swift resolution — and BL Patents’ willingness to file suit — signals active patent enforcement in the cold brew portable brewer segment. Other manufacturers of similar products (countertop or portable cold brew systems) should treat US11659952B2, US10231566B2, and US9999314B1 as live licensing risk. The absence of any invalidity or non-infringement ruling means the patents remain unchallenged in court, strengthening BL Patents’ hand in future enforcement actions.
Active licensing riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | BL Patents, LLC | Company | Cold brew brewer patent holder — asserting US11659952B2, US10231566B2, and US9999314B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | AD-N-ART, Inc. | Company | AD-N-ART, Inc. — manufacturer or distributor of cold brew portable brewers including the KB-900Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Theodore Polasek | Attorney | Counsel for BL Patents, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Polasek Law Firm PLLC | Law Firm | Representing BL Patents, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David Alan Ezra | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order records a voluntary settlement announcement by Plaintiff, followed by an immediate with-prejudice dismissal on consent. The Court’s decision to retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement is significant: it converts a private contract into a judicially enforceable instrument, enabling either party to seek contempt or specific performance in the same court. No merits ruling was issued, so the validity and scope of the three asserted patents remain legally uncontested and fully enforceable against third parties.
US11659952B2, US10231566B2 & US9999314B1 — Cold Brew Portable Brewer Patents
The three patents asserted in this case — US11659952B2 (App. No. 16/357215), US10231566B2 (App. No. 16/005608), and US9999314B1 (App. No. 13/842518) — form what appears to be a layered portfolio protecting cold brew portable brewer technology. US9999314B1, with the earliest application number, is likely the foundational patent in the family, with the later two potentially covering refinements, improved configurations, or methods of use. The technology domain covers portable cold brew coffee brewing apparatus, a segment that has grown significantly with consumer demand for at-home specialty beverages.
From a competitive standpoint, holding a multi-generational patent family in the portable cold brew segment creates durable licensing leverage. Each continuation or related filing can extend effective exclusivity while adapting claim language to cover emerging product iterations. Manufacturers of countertop cold brew systems, portable immersion brewers, or similar appliances — including private-label producers and OEM suppliers — should conduct thorough FTO assessments against all three patent numbers before commercialising new designs in this space.
Should you run an FTO against US11659952B2, US10231566B2, and US9999314B1?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing cold brew portable brewers — including products functionally similar to the KB-900 — should treat this patent family as an active FTO consideration. BL Patents has demonstrated willingness to litigate, and the settlement-with-prejudice outcome leaves all three patents legally intact. The risk is heightened for companies selling through U.S. retail channels or targeting the specialty beverage appliance market.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map product features against the claim sets of all three asserted patents simultaneously, identify potential design-around opportunities, and surface related continuation applications that may not yet have published. Running a structured FTO analysis before product launch is materially faster and cheaper than defending a W.D. Texas patent suit — as the 114-day timeline here illustrates.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11659952B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Cold Brew & Beverage Appliance Patent Cases in W.D. Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving cold brew, portable brewer, and beverage appliance technology filed in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the cold brew brewer patent landscape
BL Patents’ rapid multi-patent assertion suggests a structured enforcement program targeting cold brew equipment. Here is what that means for stakeholders.
Multi-patent assertion in under 4 months signals a licensing campaign
Filing three patents simultaneously and settling in 114 days is consistent with a patent monetisation strategy: assert a broad portfolio, negotiate quickly, and preserve patent validity. Companies in the portable brewer or cold brew equipment space should expect further assertion activity and prepare FTO analyses before launching new products.
Court-retained jurisdiction creates an ongoing enforcement lever for BL Patents
The judge’s express retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement is not boilerplate — it means BL Patents can file a motion for breach in the same court without fresh service or jurisdictional arguments. Any commercial party dealing with BL Patents in a settlement context should ensure the agreement’s obligations are precisely defined and realistic to perform.
BL v AD-N-ART — key questions answered
BL Patents, LLC asserted three U.S. patents: US11659952B2 (App. No. 16/357215), US10231566B2 (App. No. 16/005608), and US9999314B1 (App. No. 13/842518). All three relate to cold brew portable brewer technology and were asserted against AD-N-ART’s products including the KB-900.
Dismissal with prejudice means BL Patents cannot refile the same infringement claims against AD-N-ART based on the three asserted patents and the same accused products. It is a final termination of those claims. However, no merits ruling on validity or infringement was issued, so the patents remain enforceable against other parties.
The court’s retention of jurisdiction is a standard mechanism requested when a case settles. It converts the private settlement agreement into a judicially enforceable instrument, allowing either party to seek enforcement through motion rather than filing a new lawsuit. This is common in patent settlements where ongoing licensing or royalty obligations exist.
The case lasted 114 days from filing on February 11, 2025 to dismissal on June 5, 2025. This is notably swift for multi-patent district court litigation and is consistent with parties reaching a licensing or commercial settlement early — potentially before or during initial discovery — rather than engaging in prolonged claim construction or invalidity proceedings.
Yes. Because the case was resolved by settlement and dismissed without any court ruling on validity or infringement, all three patents — US11659952B2, US10231566B2, and US9999314B1 — remain legally valid and enforceable. No invalidity finding, no adverse claim construction, and no judgment of non-infringement was issued. Third parties cannot rely on this dismissal as a defence.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.