BL United LLC v. Nurserie Farm & Garden Market: Design Patent Infringement Settled
BL United LLC and Pipe Me Industry, Inc. filed suit against Nurserie Farm & Garden Market and two individual defendants in Arkansas over USD913962S, a design patent covering a conduit pipe and pin. The parties reached a settlement and stipulated dismissal with prejudice after 171 days — each side bearing its own legal costs.
Design Patent Dispute Over Conduit Pipe Ends in Agreed Dismissal
On 2 January 2024, BL United LLC and co-plaintiff Pipe Me Industry, Inc. filed an infringement action in the Eastern District of Arkansas before Judge James M. Moody. The complaint targeted Nurserie Farm & Garden Market Inc and two individual defendants, Carrie Nichole Galloway and Robin Lee Galloway, alleging infringement of USD913962S — a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a conduit pipe and pin (application number US29/722843).
The case closed on 21 June 2024, just 171 days after filing, through a stipulated dismissal with prejudice entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The dismissal was explicitly tied to a settlement agreement among all parties. A with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes the plaintiffs’ ability to refile the same claims, providing the defendants with a permanent bar against re-litigation of the asserted infringement — a meaningful concession by the patent holders in any settlement context.
The swift resolution — roughly one-tenth the typical contested patent trial timeline — suggests the parties reached commercial alignment early, possibly following an initial exchange of claim-scope information or licensing discussions. The public record does not disclose settlement terms, royalty payments, or any licensing arrangement. The mutual cost-bearing provision, however, is consistent with a negotiated compromise rather than a capitulation by either side.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 171 days
171 days — resolved well under the median district court IP case timeline of ~2.5 years
Settled and dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulation means
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the signature of all parties who have appeared. When entered ‘with prejudice,’ it operates as a final adjudication on the merits — the plaintiffs are permanently barred from bringing the same patent infringement claims against these defendants again. This is the standard vehicle for terminating settled patent litigation.
Settlement-driven exitPlaintiffs voluntarily relinquish the right to re-litigate
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, BL United LLC and Pipe Me Industry concede re-filing against these defendants on USD913962S. This typically signals that the settlement delivered sufficient commercial value — whether through a licensing fee, a cease-and-desist undertaking, or product modification by the defendants — to outweigh continued litigation. The underlying patent itself remains enforceable against third parties.
Patent survives; claims extinguishedDefendants secure permanent bar against re-litigation
For Nurserie Farm & Garden Market and the individual Galloway defendants, the with-prejudice dismissal provides certainty: the plaintiffs cannot revive these specific infringement claims. The cost-neutral provision — each party bearing its own fees — avoids the reputational and financial exposure of a fee-shifting order under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Settlement before substantive motions practice also avoids any invalidity record entering the public domain.
Clean exit for defendantsDesign patent enforcement in agricultural retail channels
This case is consistent with a pattern of design patent holders targeting downstream retail or distribution channels — here, a farm and garden market — rather than solely manufacturer defendants. For other retailers stocking conduit pipe and pin products, the filing signals active enforcement of USD913962S. The swift settlement, however, suggests licensing or compliance solutions were readily available, lowering but not eliminating risk for comparable outlets.
Downstream retail enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bl United LLC | Company | Design patent holder in conduit pipe and pin products — holder of USD913962SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Pipe Me Industry, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nurserie Farm & Garden Market Inc | Company | Farm and garden market retailer and associated individual operators alleged to have infringed USD913962SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Carrie Nichole Galloway | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Robin Lee Galloway | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rashauna A. Norment | Attorney | Counsel for Bl United LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rashauna Norment Law Firm, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Bl United LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. Todd Jones | Attorney | Counsel for Nurserie Farm & Garden Market IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Todd Jones Law Firm, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Nurserie Farm & Garden Market IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge James M. Moody | Judge | Arkansas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s explicit citation of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and the ‘settlement agreement among all parties’ is the operative language. The with-prejudice qualifier is significant: unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, this forecloses any future action by these plaintiffs on the same claims against these defendants. The mutual cost-bearing term suggests neither side extracted a dominant litigation outcome, consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution rather than a concession of liability or invalidity.
USD913962S — Ornamental Design for a Conduit Pipe and Pin
USD913962S is a United States design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a conduit pipe and pin product, filed under application number US29/722843. Design patents in the US protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture — meaning the claim scope is defined by the patent’s drawings rather than written claims. Infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.: whether an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art, would be deceived into thinking the accused product is the same as the patented design.
For the conduit and pipe fitting sector — which serves agricultural, construction, and garden infrastructure markets — design patents can be commercially powerful tools against copycat products entering through retail and distribution channels. USD913962S gives BL United LLC and Pipe Me Industry a registered IP right that can be asserted against retailers and distributors, not only original manufacturers. The filing and swift enforcement of this patent in the Eastern District of Arkansas suggests the patent holder is actively monitoring the market and is prepared to pursue downstream infringers.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD913962S?
Any company sourcing, distributing, or retailing conduit pipe and pin products — particularly those competing with or adjacent to Pipe Me Industry’s product line — should consider a freedom-to-operate review against USD913962S. This case demonstrates that enforcement extends to retail-level defendants, including small and regional farm and garden outlets. If your product has a similar ornamental profile to the patented design, exposure exists regardless of whether you manufactured the product.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can compare your product’s visual characteristics against the drawings in USD913962S and identify prior art that may support a design-around or invalidity argument. Eureka’s patent landscape tools also surface related design registrations in the conduit and pipe fitting category, helping R&D and procurement teams identify clearance risks before products reach distribution — not after a complaint is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0913962S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Infringement Cases in Hardware & Pipe Fittings
Explore comparable design patent infringement actions filed in Arkansas and related federal districts involving hardware, conduit, and pipe fitting products.
What this case signals for the conduit and pipe fitting IP landscape
A 171-day settlement cycle and individual-level defendants point to an aggressive but targeted enforcement strategy around design patents in hardware distribution.
Design patents in hardware can reach retail defendants directly
This case names not only the corporate entity but individual operators — a tactic that increases settlement pressure significantly. Hardware and agricultural supply retailers handling pipe and conduit products should audit their sourcing against active design patent registrations, particularly where the patent holder is also the product manufacturer.
171-day close suggests licensing terms were pre-formed
Cases that settle inside six months rarely do so on improvised terms. The speed here is consistent with plaintiffs having a standard licensing or compliance framework ready at filing. Defendants in comparable supply-channel positions should assess whether a proactive licensing inquiry — prior to suit — could have reduced cost exposure entirely.
Bl v Nurserie — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 21 June 2024 pursuant to a settlement agreement among all parties. The dismissal was entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The settlement terms are not disclosed in the public record.
The plaintiffs asserted USD913962S (application number US29/722843), a United States design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a conduit pipe and pin product. Design patents protect visual characteristics as depicted in the patent’s drawings rather than functional features.
A with-prejudice dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits. It permanently bars BL United LLC and Pipe Me Industry from re-filing the same infringement claims against Nurserie Farm & Garden Market, Carrie Nichole Galloway, and Robin Lee Galloway. This provides defendants with lasting certainty that the asserted claims cannot be revived.
The complaint named Carrie Nichole Galloway and Robin Lee Galloway alongside the corporate entity Nurserie Farm & Garden Market Inc. Naming individuals — likely officers or owners of the business — is a recognised enforcement tactic that increases settlement pressure and may support claims of direct or contributory infringement beyond the corporate veil, depending on the facts alleged.
The case was filed on 2 January 2024 and closed on 21 June 2024 — a duration of 171 days. This is significantly shorter than the median contested patent litigation timeline, which typically exceeds two years. The speed of resolution suggests the parties reached settlement terms relatively early in the litigation lifecycle, possibly before substantive motions practice.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.