CAO Group v. Schedule A Defendants: Whitening Strip Patent Suit Dismissed
CAO Group, Inc. asserted US10603259B2 — the patent behind its Sheer White! whitening strips — against a group of unnamed online sellers in the Northern District of Illinois. The case closed after 119 days when CAO voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), leaving the door open for future enforcement.
Schedule A infringement suit over whitening strip patent ends at 119 days
CAO Group, Inc., a dental and medical device company, filed this infringement action on 14 April 2025 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Martha M. Pacold. The suit targeted a large, unnamed group of defendants — identified only as the individuals and entities on Schedule A — a filing strategy commonly used in e-commerce enforcement campaigns against alleged online counterfeiters or parallel importers. The asserted patent, US10603259B2, protects the technology embodied in CAO’s Sheer White! whitening strips.
On 11 August 2025, plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims against the named defendants without prejudice. Because dismissal was taken before any defendant served an answer or motion for summary judgment, no court order was required. The without-prejudice designation means CAO retains the legal right to refile claims against any of the same defendants in a future action.
A 119-day lifespan is short even by the standards of Schedule A e-commerce enforcement cases, which often resolve quickly through default judgments, TRO settlements, or voluntary dismissal following targeted enforcement. The public record does not disclose whether any defendants were individually identified, whether settlements were reached off-docket, or what specific conduct triggered the original filing. The absence of any defendant-side representation on the docket is consistent with the Schedule A model, where many targets may not appear.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 119 days
119 days — resolved faster than the median N.D. Illinois patent case
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to exit before answer
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. This is the most procedurally straightforward exit: it requires no judicial approval and takes effect upon filing. No merits ruling was issued and the court made no findings on infringement, validity, or damages.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: the legal distinction that matters most here
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish CAO’s claims — the company retains the right to refile against these defendants in a future suit. This contrasts with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar refiling on the same claims. The public record identifies this as a voluntary dismissal but does not specify any settlement or the reason for withdrawal, so it is unknown whether off-docket agreements were reached with any Schedule A defendants.
Claims may be refiledSchedule A defendants: no merits ruling, but exposure persists
Because no merits decision was issued, the Schedule A defendants received no judicial finding of non-infringement or invalidity. The without-prejudice dismissal means CAO could reassert US10603259B2 against any of these parties in future litigation. Defendants also have no basis to seek fees as prevailing parties — Rule 41 dismissals of this type typically do not confer prevailing-party status under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
No prevailing party declaredE-commerce IP enforcement: why Schedule A cases often end this way
Schedule A patent suits targeting online marketplace sellers are a growing enforcement tool. Many resolve quickly through platform takedowns, asset freezes, or private settlements reached before defendants ever appear on the docket. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice in this posture frequently suggests that enforcement objectives — removal of infringing listings or off-docket payments — were achieved, though the public record here does not confirm this. Sellers in the teeth-whitening strip category should note that US10603259B2 remains an active, asserted patent.
Active patent — future riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CAO Group, Inc. | Company | Dental technology company — holder of US10603259B2 (Sheer White! whitening strips)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A | Company | Anonymous Schedule A defendants — unnamed online sellers targeted in e-commerce enforcement actionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Briana Hammons | Attorney | Counsel for CAO Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas S. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for CAO Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sameeul Haque | Attorney | Counsel for CAO Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing CAO Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Martha M. Pacold | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming that no defendant had yet answered or moved for summary judgment at the time of filing — placing full procedural control with the plaintiff. The without-prejudice designation is the critical qualifier: it preserves CAO’s ability to refile against any Schedule A defendant and forecloses any prevailing-party fee claim by the defense. The phrasing ‘any and all claims’ against the listed defendants suggests a clean exit from this particular docket, though it does not speak to enforcement actions taken or settlements reached outside the court record.
US10603259B2 — Sheer White! flexible teeth whitening strip technology
US10603259B2 (application number US15/488293) protects the technology underlying CAO Group’s Sheer White! whitening strips — a consumer dental product using flexible, form-fitting strip technology designed to deliver whitening agents to tooth surfaces. The patent sits within the oral care and dental consumables space, a category that has attracted sustained IP enforcement activity as private-label and marketplace sellers have proliferated. The specific claims likely address strip composition, adhesion mechanism, or active ingredient delivery, though the precise claim scope is defined by the issued patent text.
For CAO Group, US10603259B2 is a commercially significant asset tied directly to a branded consumer product line. Its assertion in a Schedule A action targeting anonymous online sellers suggests CAO views the patent as enforceable against lower-cost competing products sold through e-commerce channels. Companies in the OTC dental whitening category — particularly those selling flexible strip formats — face the highest exposure. The patent’s active enforcement posture in 2025 means it should be treated as a live risk by any product team developing or sourcing whitening strip products.
Should you run an FTO against US10603259B2?
If your team is developing, importing, or distributing flexible teeth whitening strips — or sourcing white-label versions from overseas manufacturers — US10603259B2 warrants a dedicated freedom-to-operate review. CAO Group’s 2025 Schedule A action demonstrates a willingness to pursue e-commerce sellers broadly, and the without-prejudice dismissal means the patent remains available for future enforcement. The risk is not limited to direct competitors: distributors and platform sellers may also be named in future Schedule A complaints.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10603259B2 against your product specifications, identify overlapping prior art that could support a design-around or validity challenge, and surface related patents in CAO Group’s portfolio that may present additional exposure. Running an Eureka FTO analysis now — before a TRO application freezes your assets — is the lowest-cost risk mitigation available to sellers in this product category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10603259B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent suits over dental whitening technology
Related dental whitening patent enforcement actions filed in N.D. Illinois using the Schedule A format, including comparable Rule 41 voluntary dismissals and TRO proceedings.
What this case signals for the teeth-whitening and dental device IP landscape
CAO Group’s Schedule A action signals active enforcement posture around Sheer White! whitening strip technology — and sets a pattern worth tracking.
US10603259B2 remains live and actively enforced — check your product line
The voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not signal that CAO has abandoned its patent. US10603259B2 was asserted in federal court in 2025 and could be redeployed. Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling flexible whitening strip products should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and conduct a freedom-to-operate review.
Schedule A tactics signal a broad sweep — unnamed defendants face renewed exposure
The Schedule A filing model allows a patentee to pursue dozens or hundreds of online sellers simultaneously with a single complaint. The rapid 119-day close, with no defendant ever appearing on the docket, is consistent with off-docket enforcement outcomes. Marketplace sellers of whitening strips — particularly on platforms like Amazon — should audit their listings and supply chain documentation.
CAO v Individuals — key questions answered
CAO Group filed a notice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissing all claims without prejudice. This means the case is closed but CAO retains the right to refile against any of the same defendants in a future action. No merits ruling was issued on infringement or patent validity, and no court findings bind either side.
CAO Group asserted US10603259B2, filed under application number US15/488293. The patent covers technology underlying the Sheer White! whitening strip product — a flexible adhesive strip for delivering whitening agents to teeth. The patent remains active and enforceable following the voluntary dismissal.
The defendants are identified only as ‘The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A’ — a standard placeholder used in e-commerce enforcement cases. The specific identities of defendants are typically set out in a separately filed Schedule A, which may be sealed. No defendant filed an appearance on the public docket in this case.
Neither party won or lost on the merits. CAO Group voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice after 119 days, before any defendant appeared or answered. There was no judgment, no finding of infringement or non-infringement, and no fee award. The dismissal is a procedural exit, not a defeat — CAO may refile.
US10603259B2 remains an active, asserted patent. The without-prejudice dismissal does not reduce future enforcement risk — CAO could refile against any defendant from the original Schedule A, or file new actions against other sellers. Companies manufacturing, importing, or selling flexible whitening strips should conduct an FTO review against this patent and monitor CAO Group’s litigation activity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.