Choon’s Design v. Anhetoy: Rubber Band Loom Patent Action Voluntarily Dismissed
Choon’s Design LLC, holder of US8899631B2 covering rubber band loom links and mini-looms, brought an infringement action against Anhetoy in the Eastern District of Michigan. After 1,023 days of litigation, Choon’s Design voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice — leaving the door open for refiling.
Rubber Band Loom Dispute Ends Without Merits Ruling After Nearly Three Years
Choon’s Design LLC filed suit against Anhetoy on 7 December 2022 in the Eastern District of Michigan, asserting infringement of US8899631B2 — a patent covering links, mini-looms, and rubber band loom connector systems. The case centred on products in the DIY craft toy segment, a market where Choon’s Design has historically been an active enforcer of its loom-related IP portfolio.
On 25 September 2025 — after 1,023 days — Choon’s Design filed a voluntary notice of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims against Anhetoy without prejudice. Critically, the public record does not specify whether a settlement was reached, nor does it record any payment or licensing terms. The without-prejudice designation means Choon’s Design could, in principle, refile substantially similar claims.
The length of the case — nearly three years before a voluntary dismissal — is notable and may suggest extended negotiation or licensing discussions occurred behind the scenes. No defendant counsel of record appears in the docket, which is consistent with an early-stage default posture or a privately negotiated resolution. The absence of a merits ruling preserves the patent’s validity status and leaves the competitive landscape for rubber band loom products in an uncertain position.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 1023 days
1,023 days — approximately 2.8 years from filing to voluntary dismissal
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice filing means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-initiated dismissal before answer
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is the most procedurally straightforward exit route available to a plaintiff. No judicial approval is required, and the court makes no ruling on the merits of the underlying infringement claims.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice confirmed — but the distinction matters
The dismissal was explicitly filed without prejudice, meaning Choon’s Design retains the right to refile infringement claims based on US8899631B2 against Anhetoy in the future. A with-prejudice dismissal would have permanently barred refiling. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement underlies this filing — it is common practice for parties to settle privately and then use a Rule 41 notice as the formal closing mechanism.
Refiling remains possibleAnhetoy escapes judgment — for now
Anhetoy faces no injunction, no damages award, and no admission of infringement as a result of this dismissal. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, Anhetoy cannot treat this as a final resolution. Should Choon’s Design refile — or pursue new claims under the same patent — Anhetoy would need to mount a full defence. The lack of recorded defendant counsel suggests Anhetoy may have been a smaller seller operating without active legal representation throughout.
No final bar to refilingUS8899631B2 validity untested — enforcement risk persists
Because no court ruled on infringement or validity, US8899631B2 emerges from this action with its claims fully intact. Sellers of competing rubber band loom links and mini-loom products cannot rely on this dismissal as a clearance signal. Choon’s Design retains an undiminished patent and an established willingness to enforce it through litigation. Companies distributing similar products — particularly on e-commerce platforms — should treat this as an ongoing risk rather than a resolved dispute.
Patent validity intactFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Choon`s Design, LLC | Company | DIY craft toy IP licensor — holder of US8899631B2 covering rubber band loom linksSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Anhetoy | Individual | Anhetoy — seller of links, mini-looms, and rubber band craft productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dean Williamson Amburn, Esq. | Attorney | Counsel for Choon`s Design, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Amburn Law PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Choon`s Design, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Michigan Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ which is the operative legal distinction. This formulation means the action is terminated procedurally — not on its merits — and Choon’s Design retains full standing to reassert infringement claims based on US8899631B2. No claim construction, no validity finding, and no damages assessment were reached. For Anhetoy, the practical result is cessation of the immediate action, but not legal closure.
US8899631B2 — rubber band loom links and mini-loom connector system
US8899631B2, filed under application number US13/626057, protects the mechanical link and connector architecture underlying rubber band loom craft toys — specifically the design and functionality of the individual links and mini-loom frames used to weave rubber bands into wearable or decorative items. The patent sits at the intersection of toy design and mechanical engineering, and was instrumental in defining the commercial rubber band loom category.
For the craft toy and consumer products sector, US8899631B2 represents a foundational asset in the rubber band loom segment. Choon’s Design’s history of asserting this patent across multiple defendants signals a deliberate enforcement strategy targeting the long tail of e-commerce resellers. Competitors and OEM manufacturers supplying rubber band loom components to the US market face meaningful infringement exposure unless products are structurally differentiated from the patented link geometry.
Should you run an FTO against US8899631B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing rubber band loom links, mini-loom frames, or similar connector-based craft toy products for sale in the US should treat US8899631B2 as an active clearance priority. This dismissal without prejudice does not constitute a safe harbour — the patent’s claims are intact and Choon’s Design has demonstrated a willingness to litigate. Product teams launching or expanding rubber band craft toy lines should obtain an FTO opinion before market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and legal teams to map product features against the specific claims of US8899631B2, identify prior art that may inform invalidity arguments, and benchmark against the prosecution history. Eureka’s claim comparison tools can highlight structural differences between a product under development and the patented link geometry — supporting both clearance opinions and proactive design-around strategies.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8899631B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar rubber band loom patent infringement cases in US district courts
Cases involving Choon’s Design or US8899631B2 in US district courts, and comparable craft toy patent infringement actions in the Eastern District of Michigan.
What this case signals for the rubber band loom and craft toy IP landscape
A voluntary without-prejudice dismissal after nearly three years suggests leverage, not abandonment — US8899631B2 remains a live enforcement risk.
Without-prejudice exits preserve plaintiff optionality — monitor for refiling
Choon’s Design’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal does not extinguish its rights. Companies selling rubber band loom products or similar link-and-connector craft toys in the US should set docket alerts for new filings by Choon’s Design asserting US8899631B2 — a second action would likely move faster given the prior litigation history.
No defendant counsel on record signals a market of small-scale sellers at risk
The absence of any recorded defendant representation is consistent with Choon’s Design targeting smaller e-commerce resellers who lack in-house IP resources. This enforcement pattern — common in craft and consumer product IP — suggests future defendants in similar actions should engage patent counsel early, before default or settlement pressure escalates.
Choon`s v Anhetoy — key questions answered
It means Choon’s Design chose to end the case procedurally under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without a court ruling on the merits. The without-prejudice designation specifically preserves Choon’s Design’s right to refile infringement claims based on US8899631B2 against Anhetoy in the future. No judgment, injunction, or damages award was entered against either party.
No. Because the case ended via voluntary dismissal before any substantive proceedings concluded, no court ruled on the validity or infringement of US8899631B2. The patent’s claims remain fully in force and unchallenged by this litigation. Companies seeking to design around the patent cannot rely on this outcome for clearance.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the extended timeline before dismissal. However, a nearly three-year period before a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal is consistent with ongoing licensing negotiations or settlement discussions. It is also possible that case management scheduling or resource prioritisation contributed to the delay. No definitive explanation appears in available court records.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar Choon’s Design from filing a new infringement action based on US8899631B2 against Anhetoy, provided applicable statutes of limitations are observed. If Choon’s Design were to refile, Anhetoy would need to mount a full defence, including any invalidity or non-infringement arguments it wishes to assert.
The case record identifies links, mini-looms, and rubber bands as the products involved — consistent with the rubber band loom connector systems covered by US8899631B2. These product categories are widely distributed through e-commerce platforms, and the case is consistent with Choon’s Design’s broader strategy of asserting its loom patents against online resellers of competing craft toy components.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.