Contego Spa Designs v. Goldust Nail Lounge: Spa Liner Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Contego Spa Designs Inc. brought a patent infringement action in the District of New Mexico against Goldust Nail Lounge LLC, asserting US11083668B2 covering flexible inner/outer-layer liners for liquid-receiving spa basins. All claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation after 213 days — a resolution that permanently bars re-litigation of the same dispute.
Nail spa equipment IP dispute ends in permanent mutual dismissal
On August 12, 2024, Contego Spa Designs Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Goldust Nail Lounge LLC in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (Case No. 1:24-cv-00803). The asserted patent, US11083668B2, covers a flexible liner incorporating distinct inner and outer layers designed for use with a liquid-receiving basin — a core component of pedicure spa chairs widely deployed in nail salon environments. Contego, as the patent holder, alleged that Goldust’s nail lounge operations involved or relied upon infringing products.
The case was resolved on March 3, 2025, when all parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Critically, the stipulation dismissed both Contego’s infringement claims and Goldust’s counterclaims with prejudice. The court’s order, entered March 13, 2025, confirmed this mechanism is self-executing under Tenth Circuit precedent — the moment the signed stipulation was filed, the district court was immediately divested of jurisdiction over the merits.
The 213-day duration from filing to closure is consistent with resolution before substantial discovery or claim construction proceedings, suggesting the parties likely reached a negotiated agreement — potentially a licensing arrangement or covenant not to sue — though the public record does not disclose financial terms. The with-prejudice dismissal on both sides is notable: Contego cannot re-assert the same infringement theory against Goldust, and Goldust cannot revive its counterclaims, creating a clean and permanent bilateral release of the litigation posture.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 213 days
213 days from filing to dismissal — consistent with early settlement before substantial discovery
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): self-executing, court loses jurisdiction immediately
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a stipulation of dismissal signed by all appearing parties is self-executing — no court approval is required, and jurisdiction over the merits is stripped the moment the document is filed. The Tenth Circuit confirmed this principle in De Leon v. Marcos, which the court expressly cited. This makes the dismissal procedurally airtight and not susceptible to later challenge on jurisdictional grounds.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — Tenth CircuitWith prejudice means this dispute cannot be relitigated
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, triggering res judicata. Contego Spa Designs is permanently barred from re-filing the same infringement claim against Goldust based on US11083668B2 for the same accused conduct. Goldust’s counterclaims are equally extinguished. This bilateral finality distinguishes the outcome from a without-prejudice dismissal, where parties retain the right to refile. Both sides agreed to this permanent closure.
Res judicata — permanent bar to re-filingContego’s patent survives — but enforcement against Goldust is permanently foreclosed
US11083668B2 remains in force and Contego retains the right to assert it against other parties. However, Contego has permanently surrendered its infringement claims against Goldust Nail Lounge specifically. This is consistent with a negotiated resolution — potentially a licensing fee, product substitution, or covenant not to sue — though the public record discloses no financial terms. The patent’s commercial value against third parties is unaffected by this dismissal.
Patent intact — third-party enforcement preservedEarly resolution limits precedent but signals active spa liner IP enforcement
The case resolved before any substantive rulings on claim construction, validity, or infringement scope, meaning no adverse precedent was established for US11083668B2. For other nail salon operators and spa equipment suppliers, the filing itself signals that Contego actively monitors and enforces its flexible liner patent portfolio. Businesses using pedicure spa basin liners should assess whether their supply chain implicates US11083668B2 before receiving a demand letter.
Active enforcement signal — no adverse precedentFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Contego Spa Designs Inc. | Company | Nail spa equipment manufacturer — holder of US11083668B2 (flexible spa basin liner)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Goldust Nail Lounge LLC | Company | Nail salon operator (Goldust Nail Lounge LLC) based in New MexicoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Sakaguchi | Attorney | Counsel for Contego Spa Designs Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marco H. Santamaria | Attorney | Counsel for Contego Spa Designs Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Neal M. Cohen | Attorney | Counsel for Contego Spa Designs Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Peacock Law PC | Law Firm | Representing Contego Spa Designs Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Vista IP Law Group LLP | Law Firm | Representing Contego Spa Designs Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kermit Dean Lopez | Attorney | Counsel for Goldust Nail Lounge LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Luis M. Ortiz | Attorney | Counsel for Goldust Nail Lounge LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ortiz & Lopez PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Goldust Nail Lounge LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Mexico District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order expressly characterizes the joint stipulation as self-executing under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), citing Tenth Circuit authority from De Leon v. Marcos. The with-prejudice designation on both Contego’s claims and Goldust’s counterclaims is legally significant: it precludes both parties from revisiting the same dispute. The court made no findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope — the order is purely procedural. The bilateral finality strongly suggests a private negotiated resolution underpinning the stipulation, the terms of which are not part of the public record.
US11083668B2 — Flexible liner with inner and outer layers for spa basins
US11083668B2 (application number US17/153642) protects a flexible liner technology incorporating distinct inner and outer layer construction specifically engineered for liquid-receiving basins — the foot-soak basins integral to pedicure spa chairs. The patent’s dual-layer architecture is designed to address hygiene and sanitation requirements in nail salon environments, where disposable or replaceable liner systems are used to prevent cross-contamination between clients. The patent reflects a targeted engineering solution to a recurring regulatory and operational challenge in the professional nail care industry.
For competitors in the professional nail spa equipment market, US11083668B2 represents a design-around risk on liner architecture. Contego Spa Designs’ willingness to assert this patent against a downstream nail salon operator — rather than solely against equipment manufacturers — suggests an enforcement strategy that extends across the full supply and use chain. Any company manufacturing, distributing, or operating pedicure spa equipment with basin liners should assess claim scope carefully, particularly given that this patent survived litigation without any adverse validity or infringement ruling on the merits.
Should you run an FTO against US11083668B2?
If your business manufactures pedicure spa chairs, supplies flexible basin liners to nail salons, or operates nail lounge facilities that use disposable or reusable liner systems for foot-soak basins, US11083668B2 is a direct freedom-to-operate concern. Contego has demonstrated it will pursue infringement actions against end-users, not just equipment producers. The patent’s claims cover the inner/outer layer construction of flexible liners — a design feature present in a wide range of standard salon basin products. Running an FTO before procurement or product launch is significantly cheaper than responding to a demand letter.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and procurement teams to map the claim language of US11083668B2 against their specific liner design specifications, identify design-around opportunities, and flag related Contego portfolio patents that may create adjacent risk. Eureka surfaces prior art, prosecution history, and comparable litigation outcomes to give IP counsel a structured, defensible FTO opinion foundation — helping you assess exposure before Contego’s enforcement team identifies your operations.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11083668B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: nail spa equipment and basin liner IP
Explore related infringement actions involving nail spa equipment patents in U.S. district courts, including comparable flexible liner and pedicure basin cases.
What this case signals for the nail spa equipment IP landscape
A with-prejudice joint dismissal in under seven months suggests a negotiated exit — and a patent holder still holding enforcement leverage.
Dismissal with prejudice does not mean the patent is weak
US11083668B2 was never tested on the merits. No claim construction order, validity ruling, or infringement finding was issued. Contego retains a fully intact patent. Competitors and downstream nail salon operators cannot rely on this dismissal as evidence that the patent is unenforceable or narrowly scoped — it remains an active litigation risk.
Bilateral with-prejudice dismissal suggests a negotiated commercial resolution
When both claims and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation, it typically signals the parties reached a private agreement — licensing, settlement payment, or a product design change. The 213-day timeline is consistent with resolution before significant discovery costs accrued, suggesting Goldust elected to resolve rather than mount a full invalidity defense.
Contego v Goldust — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), filed March 3, 2025 and ordered March 13, 2025. Both Contego’s infringement claims and Goldust’s counterclaims were permanently extinguished. No merits rulings on infringement or validity were issued.
Contego asserted US11083668B2 (application US17/153642), which covers a flexible liner with inner and outer layers for use with a liquid-receiving basin — the type of foot-soak basin used in pedicure spa chairs in nail salon environments.
Dismissal with prejudice bars Contego from re-asserting the same infringement claims against Goldust Nail Lounge based on the same conduct. However, US11083668B2 remains in force and enforceable against any other party. The dismissal creates no adverse precedent regarding the patent’s validity or scope.
No. The public record — including the joint stipulation (Doc. 33) and the court’s order — discloses no financial terms, licensing arrangements, or product design commitments. The with-prejudice bilateral dismissal is consistent with a private negotiated resolution, but the specific consideration exchanged, if any, is not publicly available.
Yes, particularly for operators who source pedicure spa chairs or basin liners from third-party suppliers. Contego’s decision to sue a nail salon operator (rather than only an equipment manufacturer) signals a downstream enforcement strategy. An FTO analysis of US11083668B2 claim scope against your specific liner products is advisable before receiving a demand letter.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.