Bowen v. Webb: Stairslide Patent Infringement Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Bowen v. Webb |
| Case Number | 2:21-cv-00699 |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Utah |
| Duration | Nov 2021 – Feb 2026 4 years 3 months |
| Outcome | Dismissed Without Prejudice — No Fees |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Stairslide |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Patent holder asserting rights under U.S. Patent No. 9,498,729 B2, represented by Armstrong Teasdale LLP.
🛡️ Defendant
Defendant facing infringement allegations related to the “Stairslide” product. Appeared to represent himself in part.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on U.S. Patent No. 9,498,729 B2, covering innovations associated with a stair-slide device, a niche but commercially relevant consumer product category. The patent protects the functional and/or ornamental aspects of an apparatus or system designed for stair-based sliding activity.
- • US 9,498,729 B2 — Apparatus for stair-based sliding activity
Developing a recreational product?
Check if your design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case was dismissed without prejudice on February 18, 2026, following Bowen’s filing of a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss. Per the court’s direction, no fees, costs, or expenses were awarded to any party. No injunctive relief was issued. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Bowen theoretically retains the right to refile claims related to the ‘729 patent against Webb in the future, absent any statute of limitations or estoppel considerations from a private settlement agreement.
Key Legal Issues
This case terminated via stipulated dismissal rather than adjudication, meaning no published legal reasoning addresses patent validity, infringement findings, or claim construction of the ‘729 patent. The absence of a merits ruling means the case contributes no direct precedent. The voluntary nature of this dismissal reflects an increasingly common resolution pathway in patent litigation — one that preserves future optionality for both parties while avoiding the cost and uncertainty of trial, often signaling a private licensing or design-around resolution.
Filing a patent for a consumer product?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand litigation.
Power Your Patent Strategy with PatSnap Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, PatSnap Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence. Trusted by law firms and technology teams worldwide.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in consumer recreational products. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View related patents in the recreational equipment space
- See which companies are most active in this technology
- Understand claim scope for similar devices
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Stair-based sliding or recreational devices
Related Patents
In recreational equipment sector
Design-Around Options
Possible with careful analysis
✅ Key Takeaways
Stipulated dismissals under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) are self-effectuating and require no court order — useful for rapid case closure.
Search related case law →No claim construction or validity record was created, leaving the ‘729 patent’s claim scope undefined by this litigation.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 9,498,729 B2 (Application No. US 14/325,279), covering technology related to the Stairslide consumer recreational product.
Plaintiff Spencer Bowen filed a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on February 17, 2026. The dismissal was mutual, cost-neutral, and self-effectuating, suggesting a private resolution between the parties.
Because the dismissal was without prejudice and no merits ruling was issued, the ‘729 patent’s validity and claim scope remain legally unaddressed by this case. Future enforcement actions remain possible.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database – US9498729B2
- PACER Case Locator – Case 2:21-cv-00699
- Armstrong Teasdale LLP IP Practice
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.