Carlson Pet Products v. Schedule A Defendants: Barrier Gate Patent Dismissed
Carlson Pet Products, Inc. asserted US11085233B1 — covering safety and barrier gate technology — against a group of unnamed online defendants in the Southern District of Florida. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal without prejudice after 189 days, leaving the door open for future enforcement action.
Schedule A gate patent suit ends without prejudice in S.D. Florida
On April 30, 2025, Carlson Pet Products, Inc. filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 1:25-cv-21998. The suit named a broad class of unnamed individuals and entities — identified on Schedule A — as defendants, a filing strategy commonly used to target clusters of e-commerce sellers alleged to infringe the same patent. The asserted patent, US11085233B1, relates to safety and barrier gate products, a core category in Carlson’s commercial portfolio.
The case closed on November 5, 2025, after 189 days, when Carlson and co-party Regalo International, LLC filed a voluntary notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning no claims were adjudicated on their merits and Carlson retains the legal right to bring the same claims against the same defendants in future proceedings. No settlement terms, licensing agreements, or injunctive relief orders appear in the public record.
A 189-day lifespan is consistent with Schedule A cases that resolve through early negotiation, licensing discussions, or defendant default — though the public record does not confirm which dynamic applied here. The involvement of Regalo International alongside Carlson as a dismissing party suggests coordinated enforcement interests, possibly a licensing or distribution relationship. What drove the dismissal — whether defendants conceded, a private agreement was reached, or Carlson elected not to proceed — remains unknown from the available docket.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 189 days
189 days — resolved before trial, consistent with early-stage Schedule A enforcement timelines
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to exit without court approval
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is a unilateral notice filed by the plaintiff before any defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. It requires no court order and takes immediate effect. Because it is entered without prejudice here, the legal consequence is that the case is treated as if it was never filed — the statute of limitations clock may resume, and Carlson retains full ability to refile the same infringement claims.
No merits rulingWithout prejudice vs. with prejudice: the public record is silent on finality
This dismissal is explicitly ‘without prejudice’, meaning it does not bar Carlson from reasserting US11085233B1 against the same Schedule A defendants. A ‘with prejudice’ dismissal would have permanently ended those claims. The public docket does not disclose whether a private settlement, licensing deal, or other agreement underpins this exit — meaning the practical finality of this resolution is unknown from publicly available filings alone.
Refiling rights preservedSchedule A defendants face lingering infringement risk despite dismissal
For the unnamed Schedule A defendants, a without-prejudice dismissal provides only conditional relief. They face no current court order, injunction, or damages ruling. However, Carlson and Regalo retain the right to reinitiate suit — potentially with a more targeted defendant list, additional evidence, or refined claim strategy. Defendants who did not enter formal agreements should treat US11085233B1 as an active enforcement risk and assess their products accordingly.
No permanent resolutionSchedule A enforcement signals ongoing portfolio pressure in pet gate sector
Carlson’s willingness to file and sustain a 189-day Schedule A action signals active enforcement intent around its barrier gate IP. The involvement of Regalo International alongside Carlson as a co-dismissing party suggests coordinated commercial interests — potentially a distribution or licensing relationship — that may shape future enforcement. Sellers of competing safety gate products on e-commerce platforms should treat this case as an indicator of continued patent monitoring activity in this product category.
Active enforcement postureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Carlson Pet Products, Inc. | Company | Pet safety products manufacturer — holder of US11085233B1 covering barrier gatesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Unnamed Schedule A e-commerce sellers alleged to infringe barrier gate patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bradley D. Liddle | Attorney | Counsel for Carlson Pet Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Frederick A. Tecce | Attorney | Counsel for Carlson Pet Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Maria Ermakova | Attorney | Counsel for Carlson Pet Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Altima Advisors/Attorneys LLC | Law Firm | Representing Carlson Pet Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cozen O’connor, PC | Law Firm | Representing Carlson Pet Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brandon Todd Holmes | Attorney | Counsel for The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP | Law Firm | Representing The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a unilateral plaintiff right exercisable before any responsive pleading is served. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it forecloses any argument by defendants that the claims are extinguished. The joint filing by both Carlson and Regalo International suggests coordinated decision-making between parties with aligned commercial interests in the asserted patent, though the underlying reason for dismissal — settlement, licensing, or strategic withdrawal — is not disclosed on the public docket.
US11085233B1 — Safety and barrier gate structural design
US11085233B1, filed under application number 16/569667, protects innovations in safety and barrier gate products — a category central to Carlson Pet Products’ commercial lineup. The patent’s B1 designation indicates it issued without any post-grant amendment, suggesting the claims emerged from prosecution in their originally filed form. Barrier gate technology in this context covers structural and mechanical features of gates used to restrict access by pets or children within residential environments.
For the pet safety and juvenile products sector, US11085233B1 represents a potential blocking position over gate designs sold through e-commerce channels. Carlson’s decision to pursue Schedule A enforcement — targeting multiple unnamed sellers simultaneously — suggests the company views this patent as commercially significant and broadly applicable to competing products. Competing manufacturers and marketplace sellers should assess whether their barrier gate designs practice the independent claims of this patent, particularly given the without-prejudice dismissal that leaves enforcement rights intact.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11085233B1?
Any manufacturer, importer, or online seller of safety gates, pet gates, or barrier gate products should treat US11085233B1 as a priority FTO target. Carlson has demonstrated willingness to file — and sustain — Schedule A enforcement actions in S.D. Florida, a jurisdiction known for expedited TRO proceedings that can freeze e-commerce accounts. The without-prejudice dismissal means this patent is still fully live as an enforcement instrument.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your barrier gate product design against the claim language of US11085233B1, identify design-around opportunities, and flag prosecution history estoppel that may limit claim scope. For marketplace sellers, Eureka can also surface related continuation and family patents that Carlson may assert in follow-on actions — giving your IP team a complete picture of the enforcement risk landscape before it escalates.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11085233B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent cases in S.D. Florida: barrier gate and pet products
Explore comparable Schedule A infringement actions in the Southern District of Florida targeting e-commerce sellers of pet safety and barrier gate products.
What this case signals for the pet safety products IP landscape
Schedule A filings against e-commerce sellers are an increasingly common enforcement tool — this case illustrates both their reach and their limitations.
Without-prejudice exit preserves Carlson’s full enforcement optionality
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice is legally equivalent to never having filed. Carlson and Regalo retain every right to refile against the same defendants. For IP teams monitoring this space, the absence of a with-prejudice ruling means US11085233B1 remains a live enforcement instrument — not a spent one.
Schedule A strategy reflects broader e-commerce enforcement trend
Filing against unnamed Schedule A defendants in S.D. Florida is a well-established tactic targeting marketplace sellers at scale. This case is consistent with a broader pattern of patent holders using Florida’s district courts to obtain TROs, freeze assets, and pressure settlements — even where cases close early without a public merits ruling.
Carlson v Individuals — key questions answered
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means the case is terminated without any ruling on the merits. Carlson retains full rights to refile the same infringement claims under US11085233B1 against the same defendants in the future. No judgment, injunction, or damages order was entered against any defendant.
Carlson Pet Products asserted US11085233B1, filed under application number 16/569667. The patent covers safety and barrier gate products — a core category in Carlson’s product line. The case was filed in the Southern District of Florida on April 30, 2025.
Regalo International, LLC appears as a co-dismissing party despite not being listed as a named plaintiff in the original filing. This suggests Regalo may hold a license, co-ownership interest, or commercial arrangement tied to US11085233B1. The public record does not disclose the specific nature of that relationship.
Schedule A cases name unnamed groups of e-commerce sellers as defendants, identified only on an attached schedule. S.D. Florida is a preferred venue because its courts have a track record of granting temporary restraining orders and asset freezes against online marketplace sellers, making it an effective enforcement forum for IP holders targeting mass infringement.
No. Because the dismissal was entered without prejudice, US11085233B1 remains fully enforceable and Carlson retains all rights to refile. Sellers of competing barrier gate products should continue to treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and consider conducting a freedom-to-operate analysis against its claim language.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.