ChuLan v. Mengsheng Technology: Pet Water Feeder Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
ChuLanDianZiKeJi (Shenzhen) filed suit against Taizhou Huangyan Mengsheng Technology in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting US11766025B2 covering automatic water feeders for pets. The case closed in 138 days via voluntary dismissal with prejudice — a permanent bar on refiling the same claims against this defendant.
A swift exit: pet tech patent dispute ends with finality in Illinois
On 5 March 2025, ChuLanDianZiKeJi (Shenzhen) YouXianGongSi filed a patent infringement complaint against Taizhou Huangyan Mengsheng Technology Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Steven C. Seeger. The asserted patent, US11766025B2, covers an automatic water feeder for pets — a product category that has seen rapid growth and intense competition among Chinese consumer electronics manufacturers selling through U.S. e-commerce channels.
The case closed on 21 July 2025, just 138 days after filing, when plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). A dismissal with prejudice is a permanent, final termination of the action: the plaintiff cannot refile the same infringement claims against Mengsheng Technology on this patent in any U.S. federal court. The defendant, represented by Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, LLP, did not need to secure a court judgment — the plaintiff’s own filing ended the case.
Resolution in under five months, without a merits ruling, is consistent with a negotiated resolution — whether a licensing agreement, settlement payment, or commercial arrangement — though the public record is silent on the underlying terms. The with-prejudice designation is notably stronger than a standard voluntary dismissal and suggests the parties reached a definitive arrangement rather than a procedural pause. What drove the plaintiff to seek a permanent exit at this early stage — before significant motion practice — remains undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 138 days
138 days — resolved well under the median district court patent case timeline of ~2.5 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice explained
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 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. Electing to do so ‘with prejudice’ goes further than the rule requires — it converts a procedural exit into a final adjudication on the merits, permanently extinguishing the plaintiff’s right to reassert the same claims against this defendant.
Permanent bar on refilingPlaintiff surrenders future enforcement rights against this defendant
By choosing dismissal with prejudice, ChuLanDianZiKeJi permanently forfeits the ability to sue Mengsheng Technology again on US11766025B2. This is a significant concession. It may reflect a licensing deal, a commercial exit from the dispute, or a reassessment of claim strength — but the public record does not specify which. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties not named in this action.
Enforcement rights waived vs. this defendantMengsheng Technology secures permanent protection from this claim
Mengsheng Technology obtains the strongest possible exit short of a court judgment: it cannot be sued again by ChuLanDianZiKeJi on this patent for the same accused products. Depending on any confidential terms reached between the parties, this may also reflect a licence, a design-around agreement, or simply a negotiated immunity. Tarter Krinsky & Drogin secured this outcome before any substantive motion was filed.
Immune from re-suit on this patentPet water feeder IP enforcement: fast resolution signals sector norms
Rapid, pre-answer dispositions are common in consumer IoT patent disputes involving Chinese manufacturers competing in U.S. e-commerce markets. This pattern typically signals one of two things: either the accused product was modified or delisted, or the parties settled commercially. Other manufacturers in the automatic pet feeder category should note that US11766025B2 remains active and may be asserted against them — this case’s dismissal does not weaken the patent’s enforceability against third parties.
Patent still enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ChuLanDianZiKeJi (Shenzhen) YouXianGongSi | Individual | Consumer electronics manufacturer (Shenzhen) — holder of US11766025B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Taizhou Huangyan Mengsheng Technology Co., Ltd | Company | Taizhou Huangyan Mengsheng Technology Co., Ltd. — pet product manufacturer, ChinaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexander Warden | Attorney | Counsel for ChuLanDianZiKeJi (Shenzhen) YouXianGongSiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Qi Men | Attorney | Counsel for ChuLanDianZiKeJi (Shenzhen) YouXianGongSiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Atlantic Partners Law Group | Law Firm | Representing ChuLanDianZiKeJi (Shenzhen) YouXianGongSiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Yk Law Llp | Law Firm | Representing ChuLanDianZiKeJi (Shenzhen) YouXianGongSiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Berkowitz | Attorney | Counsel for Taizhou Huangyan Mengsheng Technology Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Taizhou Huangyan Mengsheng Technology Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Steven C. Seeger | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly designates the dismissal as ‘with prejudice’ — a plaintiff-elected elevation beyond what the rule requires by default. This phrasing has substantive legal consequence: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata, permanently barring ChuLanDianZiKeJi from reasserting these infringement claims against Mengsheng Technology. No court finding on patent validity or infringement was made; the legal outcome flows entirely from the plaintiff’s procedural choice.
US11766025B2 — Automatic Water Feeder for Pets
US11766025B2 protects an automatic water feeder designed for pets — a device category that encompasses sensor-triggered dispensing, programmable flow control, and connected monitoring features increasingly common in the smart home and pet care market. The application was filed under corrected application number US18/132445, placing its priority in the recent wave of consumer IoT hardware innovation. The patent is held by ChuLanDianZiKeJi (Shenzhen), a Shenzhen-based electronics company active in the U.S. consumer market.
The pet care technology sector has seen significant IP activity as Chinese manufacturers compete for U.S. e-commerce market share. Automatic pet feeders and water dispensers represent a high-volume, design-sensitive product category where minor functional differences can determine infringement exposure. US11766025B2’s active status means it presents ongoing risk to any competitor whose product shares the claimed automatic water delivery architecture — making it a priority asset for FTO analysis across the category.
Should your pet device product line be cleared against US11766025B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, distributing, or retailing automatic water feeders for pets in the United States should treat US11766025B2 as a live clearance risk. The fact that ChuLanDianZiKeJi settled — or otherwise exited — this case with prejudice does not narrow the patent’s scope. Product teams designing next-generation pet hydration devices, particularly those with automated dispensing, flow sensors, or app-connected controls, face the highest exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim language from US11766025B2 against product specifications in minutes — identifying overlap, design-around pathways, and prior art relevant to validity challenges. For companies competing in the connected pet device space, running a structured FTO before product launch or U.S. market entry is the most cost-effective risk mitigation available.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11766025B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: automatic pet device IP in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable infringement actions involving pet care hardware and consumer IoT patents filed in the Northern District of Illinois and related U.S. venues.
What this case signals for the connected pet device IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice exit in a pet tech patent case carries lessons for any manufacturer competing in U.S. IoT consumer channels.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice often reflect undisclosed commercial deals
When a plaintiff voluntarily exits with prejudice before any substantive court activity, it strongly suggests the dispute resolved commercially — via licence, supply agreement, or product delisting. Competitors watching this space should treat the outcome as a signal that US11766025B2 is being actively enforced, not abandoned.
US11766025B2 remains a live enforcement risk for the pet water feeder category
This dismissal does not affect the patent’s validity or scope. Any manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of automatic pet water feeders in the U.S. market should assess their exposure to US11766025B2 independently. The case outcome provides no safe harbour for parties not named in this action.
YouXianGongSi v Taizhou — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice in this case means ChuLanDianZiKeJi permanently waived its right to sue Mengsheng Technology again on US11766025B2 for the same accused products. Filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the notice operates as a final adjudication, barring any future refiling of the same claims against this defendant in any U.S. court.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal with prejudice only affects ChuLanDianZiKeJi’s ability to sue Mengsheng Technology specifically. US11766025B2 remains a valid, enforceable patent. The patent holder retains full rights to assert it against any other manufacturer, importer, or seller of automatic pet water feeders in the United States.
A with-prejudice election typically signals that the parties reached a definitive resolution — such as a licence, settlement payment, or commercial arrangement — that makes future litigation unnecessary. It provides the defendant with a stronger guarantee of finality than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would allow the plaintiff to refile. The specific terms in this case are not part of the public record.
US11766025B2 covers an automatic water feeder for pets. The patent application number is US18/132445. The specific claim scope — including whether it covers particular dispensing mechanisms, flow control features, or connectivity functions — requires a full claim analysis, but any automatic pet water dispensing product should be assessed for FTO clearance.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and assigned to Judge Steven C. Seeger. The plaintiff was represented by Atlantic Partners Law Group and YK Law LLP; the defendant was represented by Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, LLP. The case closed after 138 days without any substantive merits ruling.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.