Cknapp Sales v. Manehu Product Alliance: TV Mount Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
VIVO (Cknapp Sales, Inc.) filed a patent infringement action against MantelMount (Manehu Product Alliance, LLC) in the Northern District of Illinois over US11781703B2, asserting rights relating to the MOUNT-E-MM070 TV mount product. The case concluded by mutual stipulation of dismissal with prejudice — both sides releasing all claims and counterclaims — in just 210 days.
TV mount patent clash ends in mutual walk-away after seven months
Cknapp Sales, Inc., operating under the VIVO brand, filed suit against Manehu Product Alliance, LLC — known commercially as MantelMount — in the Northern District of Illinois on November 21, 2023. The complaint alleged infringement of US11781703B2, a patent covering technology embodied in the MOUNT-E-MM070 TV mount product. Both VIVO and MantelMount compete in the consumer TV mounting hardware market, making the dispute commercially significant for product lines that overlap in the mantel and wall-mount segment.
The case closed on June 18, 2024, via a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Crucially, both VIVO’s claims against MantelMount and MantelMount’s counterclaims against VIVO were dismissed with prejudice. The with-prejudice designation means neither party may re-litigate the same claims in federal court, and each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs — a classic signature of a negotiated resolution.
At 210 days, the case resolved considerably faster than typical N.D. Illinois patent matters, which frequently extend well beyond a year into claim construction. The mutual fee-bearing arrangement and simultaneous dismissal of counterclaims is consistent with a commercial settlement or cross-licensing agreement reached outside of court, though the public record is silent on any financial or licensing terms. The absence of any court-ordered remedy leaves the enforceability and scope of US11781703B2 judicially untested.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 210 days
210 days — faster than the N.D. Illinois patent case median, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal requires written consent from all parties. When entered with prejudice, it operates as a final adjudication on the merits — neither party can revive these specific claims in federal court. The dismissal of counterclaims with prejudice is equally final, extinguishing MantelMount’s defenses as independent causes of action going forward.
Claim preclusion appliesVIVO exits without a court win — but also without loss on the merits
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, VIVO (Cknapp Sales) relinquishes the right to sue MantelMount again on the same patent claims. However, because no court ruled on infringement or validity, US11781703B2 remains in force and can still be asserted against other defendants. The with-prejudice bar applies specifically to MantelMount on these claims.
Patent validity intactMantelMount’s counterclaims also extinguished with prejudice
MantelMount filed counterclaims — likely invalidity and non-infringement defences styled as affirmative claims — which were also dismissed with prejudice. This means MantelMount cannot revive those counterclaims in a new action. If VIVO were to assert US11781703B2 against MantelMount again in a different context, MantelMount would need to raise fresh invalidity arguments outside the scope of the dismissed counterclaims.
Counterclaims extinguishedPatent untested — VIVO retains enforcement optionality elsewhere
Because the case resolved without a merits ruling, US11781703B2 has no judicial validity or infringement record attached to it. For competitors other than MantelMount, the patent’s enforceability remains an open question. The rapid resolution and mutual fee-bearing arrangement suggests both parties found commercial resolution preferable to the cost and uncertainty of claim construction — a common dynamic in hardware-adjacent consumer goods IP disputes.
Enforcement risk remains for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Cknapp Sales, Inc. | Company | Consumer electronics mount brand (VIVO) — holder of US11781703B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Manehu Product Alliance, LLC | Company | MantelMount — TV mount innovator, Manehu Product Alliance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin T. Horton | Attorney | Counsel for Cknapp Sales, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chelsea Madeline Murray | Attorney | Counsel for Cknapp Sales, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaku Begert | Attorney | Counsel for Cknapp Sales, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan N. Phelan | Attorney | Counsel for Cknapp Sales, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cknapp Sales, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric D. Brandfonbrener | Attorney | Counsel for Manehu Product Alliance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ramsey M. Al-Salam | Attorney | Counsel for Manehu Product Alliance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stevan R. Stark | Attorney | Counsel for Manehu Product Alliance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Manehu Product Alliance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation mirrors standard bilateral settlement language under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): both offensive claims and defensive counterclaims are discharged with prejudice simultaneously, and each party absorbs its own litigation costs. The symmetrical structure — neither side receiving a cost award — is characteristic of a commercially negotiated exit rather than a capitulation by either party. The phrasing ‘dismissed with prejudice’ is legally operative: it bars re-litigation of these specific claims between these parties, but the underlying patent US11781703B2 retains full enforceability against third parties.
US11781703B2 — TV wall mount mechanism (MOUNT-E-MM070)
US11781703B2, filed under application number US17/959202, covers technology embodied in the MOUNT-E-MM070 product — a consumer TV wall mount designed for positioning and articulation. The patent falls within the mechanical hardware domain, specifically addressing mount support structures and adjustment mechanisms used in home entertainment installation. Its issuance as a B2 designation indicates the patent granted with amended claims following USPTO examination.
For the TV mount sector, US11781703B2 represents a commercially targeted asset — VIVO and MantelMount compete directly in the premium pull-down and mantel-mount hardware category, where differentiated mechanical designs carry meaningful product-line value. The patent’s enforceability has not been adjudicated, meaning it presents an unresolved risk for manufacturers and distributors of functionally similar TV mounting hardware sold through retail and e-commerce channels in the US market.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11781703B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing TV wall mount or mantel mount products in the United States should assess exposure to US11781703B2. The patent remains fully in force with no adverse validity ruling on record. Given that the litigation involved competing consumer hardware brands, the claims are likely directed at mechanism-level features present in a range of pull-down, full-motion, or mantel-style TV mount products — not just the specific MOUNT-E-MM070 model.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map US11781703B2’s claim scope against their own product designs, identify prior art that could support design-around arguments, and benchmark against the broader TV mount patent landscape. With the patent judicially untested, early FTO analysis is the most cost-effective way to assess enforcement risk before product launch or market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11781703B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar TV mount and consumer hardware patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving TV mount hardware and consumer mechanical device patents litigated in the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the TV mount and consumer hardware IP landscape
A fast, bilateral walk-away in consumer mount litigation carries specific signals for IP strategy in this hardware segment.
US11781703B2 remains judicially untested — monitor its next assertion
No court ruled on validity or infringement of US11781703B2. For any company manufacturing or distributing TV wall mount products, this patent remains a live enforcement risk. VIVO retains full rights to assert it against new defendants, and the absence of an adverse validity ruling strengthens its litigation posture in any future action.
Mutual fee-bearing dismissals typically signal a commercial resolution
When both sets of claims — including counterclaims — are dismissed with prejudice and each party bears its own costs, it is strongly consistent with a negotiated settlement or cross-licensing agreement. The public record discloses no financial terms. Companies monitoring the VIVO and MantelMount product overlap should note that competitive dynamics may have shifted without public disclosure.
Cknapp v Manehu — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of both parties under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on June 18, 2024. Both VIVO’s infringement claims and MantelMount’s counterclaims were extinguished with prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No merits ruling was issued.
The patent at issue is US11781703B2 (application US17/959202), a patent covering TV wall mount technology associated with the MOUNT-E-MM070 product. The patent is held by Cknapp Sales, Inc., operating under the VIVO brand, and has not been adjudicated for validity or infringement.
A dismissal with prejudice in this case means VIVO cannot sue MantelMount again on the same claims under US11781703B2. However, the patent itself remains in force and enforceable. VIVO retains the right to assert US11781703B2 against other defendants in the TV mount industry, and no court has ruled on validity or claim scope.
The public record shows a bilateral stipulated dismissal with prejudice and mutual fee-bearing, which is consistent with an out-of-court settlement or cross-licensing arrangement. However, no settlement agreement, financial terms, or licensing details are publicly disclosed. The case formally concluded as a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal.
Cknapp Sales (VIVO) was represented by Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP, with attorneys Benjamin T. Horton, Chelsea Madeline Murray, Isaku Begert, and Ryan N. Phelan. Manehu Product Alliance (MantelMount) was represented by Perkins Coie LLP, with attorneys Eric D. Brandfonbrener, Ramsey M. Al-Salam, and Stevan R. Stark.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.