Coanhe v. Viva 5 Group & Growve Go: Design Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
Coanhe, Ltd. filed suit in the Middle District of Florida against Viva 5 Group and Growve Go — both operating as ‘Risqué’ — alleging infringement of design patent USD0894529S covering an intimate apparel concealer cover. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice just 119 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs.
Design Patent Dispute Over Intimate Apparel Ends Swiftly in M.D. Florida
On 6 February 2024, Coanhe, Ltd. filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 8:24-cv-00355) against Viva 5 Group, LLC and Growve Go, LLC, both trading under the ‘Risqué’ brand. The suit centred on USD0894529S, a U.S. design patent covering an intimate apparel concealer cover product, with the accused products identified as the Risqué Camel Toe Concealer Cover, Risqué Couture, and Risqué Cover.
The case closed on 4 June 2024 via a voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed by plaintiff Coanhe under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Dismissal with prejudice is legally significant: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Coanhe from reasserting the same infringement claims against these defendants regarding USD0894529S. The order expressly provided that each party would bear its own costs and fees, indicating no monetary resolution was publicly recorded.
The 119-day resolution is notably brief for a patent infringement action and suggests the parties likely reached a private agreement — possibly a licensing arrangement or a consent-to-dismiss — prior to any substantive court rulings. No defendant law firm appeared on the public docket, which may indicate the defendants did not formally answer before the dismissal was filed. The precise commercial terms, if any, remain unknown from the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 119 days
119 days — resolved faster than the median M.D. Florida patent case, suggesting early resolution pressure
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice explained
A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. When filed ‘with prejudice,’ as here, the dismissal is treated as a final judgment on the merits under res judicata principles. Coanhe cannot refile the same design patent infringement claims against these defendants in any federal court. This is a stronger self-imposed bar than a typical without-prejudice exit.
Permanent bar on refilingCoanhe permanently relinquishes its infringement claims
By filing with prejudice, Coanhe accepted a final end to its claims against both defendants regarding USD0894529S. While this forecloses further litigation on these specific claims, it does not invalidate the design patent itself — USD0894529S remains in force and can be asserted against other parties. The each-party-bears-costs provision means Coanhe received no publicly recorded monetary recovery, though private commercial terms cannot be ruled out.
Patent remains enforceable vs. third partiesViva 5 and Growve Go achieve permanent release from this suit
The with-prejudice dismissal gives both Viva 5 Group and Growve Go a durable shield against re-assertion of these specific claims by Coanhe. No defendant law firm appeared on the docket, suggesting the matter may have been resolved before defendants incurred substantial legal costs. The cost-neutrality clause reinforces that no damages were awarded. Both defendants should, however, remain mindful that USD0894529S persists as a live patent.
No damages; res judicata protectionDesign patent enforcement in consumer goods: a quick exit can still carry leverage
The swift, with-prejudice closure — absent any public ruling on validity or infringement — suggests the filing itself may have served a commercial deterrent or negotiating function. In consumer goods sectors with close product form factors, design patent suits often resolve before substantive milestones. Competitors in the intimate apparel space should note USD0894529S remains active and enforceable against third parties not party to this dismissal.
Live design patent risk for market peersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Coanhe, Ltd | Company | Intimate apparel IP holder — holder of design patent USD0894529S for concealer coverSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Viva 5 Group, LLC | Company | Viva 5 Group, LLC & Growve Go, LLC — consumer goods sellers operating as ‘Risqué’Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Growve Go, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christine Holleman Dupriest | Attorney | Counsel for Coanhe, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathon A. Fligg | Attorney | Counsel for Coanhe, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julie C. Giardina | Attorney | Counsel for Coanhe, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP | Law Firm | Representing Coanhe, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and specifies ‘with prejudice’ — language that transforms a voluntary exit into a final adjudication under res judicata. No court order was required because the notice was filed before defendants served an answer. The express cost-neutrality provision (‘each party shall bear its own costs and fees’) eliminates any publicly recorded fee recovery. The phrasing does not reveal whether a private settlement existed, but the with-prejudice election suggests Coanhe had sufficient comfort in the outcome to permanently waive refiling rights against these specific defendants.
USD0894529S — Intimate Apparel Concealer Cover Design Patent
USD0894529S (application number US29/707066) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of an intimate apparel concealer cover product. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the novel, ornamental characteristics of an article of manufacture rather than functional attributes. The application number prefix ’29/’ confirms this is a design application filed with the USPTO, and the USD prefix on the grant number is standard for issued U.S. design patents. The specific filing and grant dates are not publicly disclosed in this case record, but the patent was asserted as live and enforceable at the time of filing in February 2024.
In the competitive intimate apparel and body-concealment accessories market, ornamental design protection can be commercially decisive where competing products share similar functional attributes but differ only in form. USD0894529S covers a product — a camel toe concealer cover — that has seen growing mainstream retail distribution under multiple brand names. The ability to assert a design patent against multiple product variants (Risqué Camel Toe Concealer Cover, Risqué Couture, and Risqué Cover) under a single design registration underscores the breadth risk this patent poses for competitors with similar product aesthetics.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against USD0894529S?
Any brand, manufacturer, or retailer developing or distributing intimate apparel concealer products in the U.S. market should treat USD0894529S as an active enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that Coanhe is willing to file suit in federal court against competing sellers operating under different brand names. The dismissal here — with prejudice — does not limit Coanhe’s ability to assert the same design patent against new entrants or existing competitors not party to this case. An FTO analysis should assess ornamental similarity between your product’s form factor and the protected design, not merely functional differences.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map USD0894529S’s design claim scope, identify prior art that may bear on validity, surface related Coanhe patent filings, and flag other design patents in the intimate apparel concealer space that could create overlapping exposure. For product teams bringing a new concealer or form-fitting accessory to market, running this analysis before launch is materially lower-cost than responding to a federal infringement complaint — as this 119-day case illustrates, even early exits carry litigation economics.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0894529S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Infringement Cases in Consumer Apparel — M.D. Florida
Browse comparable design patent infringement actions in the intimate apparel and consumer goods space litigated in M.D. Florida and related federal districts.
What this case signals for the consumer goods design patent landscape
A 119-day with-prejudice exit in M.D. Florida reflects how design patent enforcement can function as a rapid commercial lever in consumer products.
With-prejudice exits can still serve as effective IP deterrents
Filing a design patent suit and accepting a with-prejudice dismissal — particularly before substantive motions — suggests the plaintiff may have achieved its commercial objective outside the courtroom. In-house teams should note this pattern: the filing itself can trigger competitor behaviour changes or licensing discussions without costly litigation.
USD0894529S remains enforceable against the broader market
The dismissal binds only these two defendants. Competing sellers of intimate apparel concealer products remain exposed to enforcement of USD0894529S. Any brand launching or distributing similar products should consider an FTO analysis against this design patent before commercialisation.
Coanhe v Viva — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars Coanhe from refiling the same design patent infringement claims against Viva 5 Group and Growve Go. However, the dismissal does not affect USD0894529S’s validity or enforceability against any other party in the market.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal with prejudice in Case 8:24-cv-00355 extinguishes Coanhe’s claims only against these specific defendants. USD0894529S remains a live U.S. design patent and can be asserted against other manufacturers, distributors, or retailers of ornamentally similar intimate apparel concealer products.
The 119-day timeline and the absence of any defendant law firm appearance on the docket are consistent with a resolution reached before defendants formally answered the complaint. This pattern typically suggests a private agreement — such as a licensing arrangement, a product redesign commitment, or a negotiated exit — was reached shortly after the suit was filed.
Coanhe’s infringement action identified three products sold under the ‘Risqué’ brand: the Risqué Camel Toe Concealer Cover, Risqué Couture, and Risqué Cover. Both defendants — Viva 5 Group, LLC and Growve Go, LLC — operated under the Risqué trade name according to the case record.
Coanhe, Ltd. was represented by Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. The attorneys of record were Christine Holleman Dupriest, Jonathon A. Fligg, and Julie C. Giardina. No defendant law firm appeared on the public docket before the case was dismissed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.