CAO Group v. Walmart: Five-Patent Teeth Whitening Dispute Ends in Dismissal
CAO Group Inc. filed suit against Walmart in Utah federal court, asserting five patents covering LED-accelerated teeth whitening technology against Walmart’s Equate brand whitening strip product line. After 512 days of litigation, the parties reached a stipulated dismissal with prejudice — each side bearing its own costs.
LED Whitening Patent Portfolio vs. Retail Giant Ends Quietly
CAO Group Inc., a Utah-based developer of LED-based dental and consumer health technologies, filed suit against Walmart, Inc. on March 5, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah before Judge Dale A. Kimball. The complaint alleged infringement of five patents covering LED-accelerated teeth whitening compositions and methods, asserted against Walmart’s Equate Professional Whitening Strips, Equate Timeless White Whitening Strips, and Equate Ultra White Whitening Strips — the retailer’s private-label dental care line.
The case terminated on July 30, 2025, via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Both parties agreed that all claims between them are permanently extinguished with no right of refiling. Critically, the stipulation specifies that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a mutual walk-away structure that typically signals either a confidential licensing resolution or a negotiated covenant not to sue, neither of which would appear in the public record.
The 512-day duration suggests the parties engaged in substantive litigation activity — likely including claim construction exchanges, early discovery, and possibly IPR or licensing discussions — before resolving. The with-prejudice character of the dismissal permanently forecloses CAO Group from reasserting these five patents against Walmart in federal court, a significant concession from a patent holder. What drove that concession — whether a settlement payment, a license, or a product change by Walmart — remains unknown from the public docket.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 512 days
512 days — longer than the median district court patent case settlement window of ~350 days
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice — permanent bar
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a joint filing by both parties that terminates litigation permanently. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, CAO Group cannot refile these specific claims against Walmart in any federal court. The dismissal carries res judicata effect as to these five patents and this defendant, closing the litigation door definitively.
Permanent — no refiling permittedCAO Group surrenders its right to sue Walmart again on these patents
While the patents themselves remain valid and in force against the broader market, CAO Group has permanently waived its infringement claims against Walmart on all five asserted patents. The mutual cost-bearing provision means no fee award was secured. This outcome is consistent with a negotiated resolution — possibly a license or covenant — but the public record does not confirm any payment or ongoing rights arrangement.
Patents survive — Walmart claim barredWalmart exits litigation with no adverse judgment on record
Walmart, represented by Greenberg Traurig LLP and Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, secured a clean exit: no infringement finding, no damages award, and no injunction. The Equate whitening strip product line faces no court-ordered restrictions. Walmart also bears no fee liability. The with-prejudice nature means CAO Group cannot re-approach the courthouse on these specific patents against Walmart.
No liability — clean exitFive active whitening patents remain enforceable against other retailers and brands
The resolution resolves only the Walmart dispute. CAO Group’s five LED teeth whitening patents — covering compositions and methods for LED-accelerated whitening — remain active and can be asserted against other parties in the dental consumer goods space. Competitors selling private-label or branded LED whitening products should treat this portfolio as an ongoing enforcement risk, particularly given CAO Group’s willingness to litigate at the district court level.
Portfolio remains live for third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CAO Group Inc | Company | LED dental technology innovator — holder of 5 teeth whitening patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Walmart, Inc. | Company | Walmart, Inc. — global mass-market retailer, Equate private-label brand ownerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian E. Lahti | Attorney | Counsel for CAO Group IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan A. Helfgott | Attorney | Counsel for CAO Group IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lahti Helfgott, LLC | Law Firm | Representing CAO Group IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John W. Huber | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Peter Presvelis | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Julie Bookbinder | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas Peterson | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Michael Azzi | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott J. Bornstein | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP | Law Firm | Representing Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP | Law Firm | Representing Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Dale A. Kimball | Judge | Utah District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language is precise and commercially significant: both parties ‘knowingly and voluntarily’ waive all rights to costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, and the dismissal is expressly with prejudice. This dual-waiver structure — permanent claim bar plus mutual cost surrender — is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than unilateral plaintiff withdrawal. The absence of any carve-out for future product versions or continuation patents is notable; the dismissal’s scope is limited to claims ‘between them in this action,’ meaning newly issued continuation patents from the same families could theoretically support a future action, albeit against a background of reputational friction.
US10602259, US11826445, US11826444, US10646419, US11219582 — LED Teeth Whitening Portfolio
CAO Group asserted five U.S. patents spanning multiple application lineages, all directed to LED-accelerated teeth whitening technology. The portfolio covers compositions, devices, and methods that use light-emitting diode activation to enhance the efficacy of whitening agents applied to dental surfaces. Application dates range across filings from approximately 2017 to 2022, suggesting a deliberate prosecution strategy to build layered claim coverage across successive continuation and continuation-in-part applications — a structure designed to maintain enforcement leverage as product iterations evolve.
The strategic significance of this portfolio lies in its breadth across both composition and method claims. For mass-market retailers offering private-label LED whitening strips — a category that has grown substantially as LED whitening moved from professional dental offices to consumer retail — the portfolio represents a material infringement risk. CAO Group’s willingness to assert all five patents simultaneously against a defendant of Walmart’s scale, and to sustain litigation for over 500 days, is consistent with a company that views its IP as a core commercial asset rather than a defensive hedge.
Should you run an FTO against CAO Group’s whitening patent portfolio?
Any company developing, sourcing, or retailing LED-activated teeth whitening strips — including private-label brands, OEM manufacturers, and specialty dental product suppliers — should treat CAO Group’s five-patent portfolio as a priority FTO target. The Walmart litigation demonstrates that the patent holder is prepared to assert these rights against major retail distribution channels, not just direct competitors. With multiple application lineages still potentially active in prosecution, the risk window extends beyond the five patents of record.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map claim coverage across all five CAO Group patent families, identify continuation applications under active prosecution, flag design-around opportunities in whitening composition or light-activation methodology, and surface prior art that may support validity challenges. For procurement or product teams evaluating LED whitening SKUs, Eureka’s automated monitoring can alert you to new grants from the CAO Group portfolio before products reach retail shelves.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10602259B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LED dental & consumer health patent cases in U.S. District Courts
Cases involving LED-based dental whitening patents and consumer health IP assertions in Utah and other U.S. district courts, including comparable multi-patent retail infringement actions.
What this case signals for the LED dental consumer goods IP landscape
A five-patent assertion against a top-five global retailer, resolved quietly — with permanent bars but no public terms.
With-prejudice dismissals against retailers often mask licensing deals
When a patent holder accepts a with-prejudice dismissal with each party bearing its own costs, the economic logic typically points to a confidential resolution — license, royalty, or covenant. Pure capitulation by the plaintiff is less likely after 512 days of active litigation. Companies in the dental consumer goods space should treat this as a signal that CAO Group’s whitening portfolio has demonstrated licensing leverage.
Five co-pending patents create a stacking risk for whitening product makers
CAO Group asserted patents across multiple application lineages covering LED whitening compositions and methods. For any company selling LED-enhanced whitening strips — private label or branded — the portfolio breadth means a single FTO clearance of one patent is insufficient. Design-around strategies must address the full claim landscape across all five patent families to achieve durable freedom to operate.
CAO v Walmart — key questions answered
CAO Group asserted five U.S. patents: US10602259B1, US11826445B2, US11826444B2, US10646419B2, and US11219582B2. All relate to LED-accelerated teeth whitening technology covering compositions, devices, and methods. The patents were asserted against Walmart’s Equate Professional, Timeless White, and Ultra White Whitening Strips product lines.
The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, and both parties waived any right to seek such fees. The with-prejudice designation permanently bars CAO Group from refiling these specific claims against Walmart.
A dismissal with prejudice where each party bears its own costs — rather than the plaintiff simply walking away — typically suggests a negotiated resolution, such as a confidential license, royalty agreement, or covenant not to sue. Pure capitulation by a patent holder after 512 days of active litigation is less common. However, the public record in this case does not confirm any financial terms or ongoing arrangement between the parties.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice applies only to claims between CAO Group and Walmart in this specific action. The five patents remain valid and enforceable against other parties. Companies selling LED-activated whitening strips under their own brands or as private-label products remain exposed to potential assertion from the same portfolio.
Walmart was represented by Greenberg Traurig LLP and Warner Norcross & Judd LLP. Attorneys of record included John W. Huber, Jonathan Peter Presvelis, Julie Bookbinder, Nicholas Peterson, Robert Michael Azzi, and Scott J. Bornstein. CAO Group was represented by Lahti Helfgott, LLC, with Brian E. Lahti and Jonathan A. Helfgott as counsel of record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.