Choon’s Design v. WeCool Toys: Brunnian Link Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
Choon’s Design, LLC asserted US8899631B2 — covering a Brunnian link making device and kit — against toy manufacturer WeCool Toys, Inc. in the District of New Jersey. After nearly three years of litigation, both parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own fees and costs.
Rubber-band loom patent fight ends in bilateral walk-away after 993 days
Choon’s Design, LLC filed suit against WeCool Toys, Inc. on November 2, 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 2:22-cv-06424). The complaint alleged infringement of US8899631B2, a patent covering a Brunnian link making device and kit — the technology underlying rubber-band loom toys that generate interlocking loop structures without knots. Choon’s Design is an established enforcer of intellectual property in the rubber-band craft toy space, and WeCool Toys is a consumer toy company whose product line overlapped with the patented device category.
The case concluded on July 22, 2025, when both parties filed a stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which Judge Jamel K. Semper so-ordered the same day. Critically, the dismissal was entered with prejudice as to all claims and counterclaims, meaning neither party can re-litigate the same dispute. Each party agreed to bear its own attorney fees and litigation costs, suggesting no monetary judgment changed hands and no formal licensing or settlement payment was publicly disclosed.
A 993-day duration before a with-prejudice stipulated dismissal is consistent with a negotiated resolution reached after substantial litigation activity — likely following claim construction, discovery, or pre-trial proceedings. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement typically signals a negotiated exit rather than a capitulation by either side. The public record does not disclose whether a private licensing agreement, product design change, or commercial settlement underlies the stipulation, leaving the true commercial resolution opaque.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 993 days
993 days — nearly three years from filing to dismissal with prejudice
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice: permanent bar on re-filing
A stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared and is entered by court order. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical qualifier: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Choon’s Design from reasserting the same infringement claims against WeCool Toys based on US8899631B2 for the same accused products. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, this closure is irreversible.
Permanent — no re-filing permittedChoon’s Design surrenders right to re-assert this claim against WeCool
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Choon’s Design permanently relinquishes its infringement claims against WeCool Toys under US8899631B2 for the accused products. The patent itself remains in force and enforceable against other parties. The cost-bearing arrangement — each side paying its own fees — suggests neither a damages award nor a formal acknowledgment of infringement appears in the public record. Any resolution is likely governed by undisclosed private terms.
Patent survives; this claim does notWeCool Toys achieves permanent resolution — but at undisclosed commercial terms
WeCool Toys secured a with-prejudice dismissal, meaning Choon’s Design cannot revive these specific infringement claims. However, the absence of a public adjudication on validity or non-infringement means WeCool holds no court-declared freedom to operate under US8899631B2 — only protection from this particular plaintiff on these particular accusations. The underlying patent remains a risk factor for WeCool’s product line if design or product scope changes.
Protected from re-suit; no FTO declarationUS8899631B2 remains enforceable against the broader toy market
Because the case resolved without a validity ruling or claim construction decision entering the public record, US8899631B2 retains its full presumption of validity. Other toy manufacturers in the Brunnian link or rubber-band loom space cannot rely on this litigation as precedent for non-infringement or invalidity. Choon’s Design may continue to assert the patent against different defendants, and the with-prejudice exit here does not signal any weakening of the patent’s enforceability.
Patent enforceable against third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Choon`s Design, LLC | Company | Toy IP licensor — holder of US8899631B2 covering Brunnian link making devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Wecool Toys, Inc. | Company | Consumer toy manufacturer WeCool Toys, Inc., accused of infringing rubber-band loom patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott Bennett Freemann | Attorney | Counsel for Choon`s Design, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | 3101 W. GLENWOOD AVENUE | Law Firm | Representing Choon`s Design, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Noam Joseph Kritzer | Attorney | Counsel for Wecool Toys, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Scott McPhee | Attorney | Counsel for Wecool Toys, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kritzer Mcphee LLP | Law Firm | Representing Wecool Toys, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation entered by Judge Semper confirms dismissal of all claims and counterclaims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own fees and costs. The ‘with prejudice’ language is dispositive: it forecloses any future suit by Choon’s Design against WeCool Toys on the same patent and accused products. Notably, the stipulation is silent on validity, infringement findings, and any financial terms — meaning the public record reflects only procedural closure. The symmetric cost allocation is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution rather than a plaintiff or defendant win on the merits.
US8899631B2 — Brunnian link making device and kit
US8899631B2 protects a device and kit for creating Brunnian links — interlocking loop structures in which no individual loop is directly knotted to another, yet the chain holds together. The underlying application (US13/626057) covers the mechanical peg-and-loom format that enabled mass-market rubber-band bracelet-making toys. The patent sits at the intersection of toy mechanics and craft product design, and its claims encompass both the structural device and the kit format sold at retail — making it broadly applicable to product-line variants.
In the competitive toy market, US8899631B2 represents a foundational IP asset in the rubber-band loom category. Choon’s Design has demonstrated willingness to enforce the patent against multiple commercial actors, signalling that any product incorporating a Brunnian link-making peg structure faces litigation risk. For toy companies, private-label manufacturers, and overseas importers entering this product category, the patent’s continued validity — undisturbed by this case — keeps enforcement risk elevated across the supply chain.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8899631B2?
Any company developing, importing, or distributing a device that enables users to create Brunnian or interlocking rubber-band link structures — including loom kits, peg boards, or bracelet-making sets — faces direct exposure to US8899631B2. The patent’s claims are broad enough to capture both standalone devices and bundled kits. Because this case closed without a validity or claim-scope ruling, product teams cannot rely on any judicial narrowing of the claims when assessing FTO.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim language of US8899631B2, identify prior art that was not addressed in this litigation, and surface related Choon’s Design patent family members that may extend coverage. Running a structured FTO now — before market launch or a design refresh — is materially lower cost than defending a subsequent infringement action in the District of New Jersey.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8899631B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Brunnian link and toy mechanism patent cases in US District Courts
Cases involving rubber-band loom and Brunnian link device patents litigated in US District Courts, including prior Choon’s Design enforcement actions asserting US8899631B2.
What this case signals for the toy and craft IP enforcement landscape
A nearly three-year dispute ending in mutual walk-away carries distinct signals for IP holders and product teams in the toy sector.
With-prejudice exits protect defendants — but don’t create FTO
WeCool Toys is permanently shielded from re-suit by Choon’s Design on these claims, but the dismissal creates no judicial finding of non-infringement or invalidity. Toy companies facing similar patents should not treat a competitor’s with-prejudice dismissal as clearing their own path — they require independent FTO analysis against US8899631B2.
Rubber-band loom IP remains actively enforced — monitor Choon’s Design filings
Choon’s Design has a documented history of asserting US8899631B2 across the toy market. The resolution of this case does not retire the patent. R&D and product teams working on interlocking-loop, loom-style, or Brunnian link toy mechanisms should maintain active patent watch on Choon’s Design’s litigation and licensing activity.
Choon`s v Wecool — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars Choon’s Design from re-filing the same infringement claims against WeCool Toys under US8899631B2 for the accused Brunnian link products. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits. However, it contains no validity ruling and does not restrict Choon’s Design from suing other defendants.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice only extinguishes Choon’s Design’s claims against WeCool Toys specifically. US8899631B2 retains its full presumption of validity and remains enforceable against other parties. No claim construction order or invalidity finding entered the public record during this litigation, leaving the patent’s scope legally intact.
The public record does not disclose the underlying reason. A stipulated dismissal with prejudice entered nearly three years into litigation — with each side bearing its own costs — is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution. This pattern typically suggests the parties reached a commercial or licensing arrangement, or that litigation developments made continued prosecution unattractive for both sides without either achieving clear leverage.
Not automatically. The dismissal protects WeCool Toys from re-suit by Choon’s Design on these specific accused products, but it does not constitute a judicial finding of non-infringement or invalidity. If WeCool Toys modifies its product design or expands its line, independent FTO analysis against US8899631B2 would still be advisable. The patent remains a live risk for any Brunnian link device in the market.
A Brunnian link is an interlocking loop chain in which no two individual loops are directly linked, yet the overall chain is cohesive. US8899631B2 covers a device — typically a peg board or loom — that allows users to create these structures using rubber bands or similar elastic loops. The patent covers both the device format and the kit form sold at retail, which is the basis for the commercial rubber-band bracelet-making toy category.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.