Contego Spa Designs v. Malibu Nail Lounge: Pedicure Spa Patent Dispute Settles in 115 Days
Contego Spa Designs, Inc. asserted US9289353B2 — covering pedicure spa equipment — against Malibu Nail Lounge and related defendants in the Southern District of Texas. The parties reached an amicable settlement, closing the case in just 115 days without a merits ruling from Judge Lee H. Rosenthal.
Pedicure spa patent dispute resolves quietly in four months
On 13 February 2024, Contego Spa Designs, Inc. filed suit in the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 4:24-cv-00522) against Malibu Nail Lounge, M Nails Investment LLC dba Malibu Nail Lounge, and individual defendants Anna Nguyen, Dung Tran, Hoa Do, and Peter Truong. The complaint asserted infringement of US9289353B2, a patent directed to pedicure spa systems, specifically citing KYEN and T-Spa pedicure spa products as the accused equipment.
The case closed on 7 June 2024 — just 115 days after filing — when counsel advised Judge Lee H. Rosenthal that the parties had reached an amicable settlement. The court dismissed the case on the merits but without prejudice, preserving a 60-day window for either party to move for reinstatement if the settlement could not be consummated. All pending motions were denied without prejudice, with a 14-day resubmission window tied to any reinstatement motion.
Resolution in under four months suggests the parties found common ground before significant litigation costs accumulated — typically a signal of either strong patent validity posture, clear infringement exposure, or commercial motivation to avoid prolonged discovery. The settlement terms are not public, leaving the scope of any licensing arrangement, royalty, or operational undertaking by the defendants unknown from the court record.
Filing to Case Settled in 115 days
115 days — well below the median time-to-disposition for patent cases in S.D. Texas
Case settled: what the dismissal order means for both parties
Dismissed without prejudice — with a reinstatement safety net
Judge Rosenthal’s order dismisses the case on the merits but without prejudice, and critically preserves a 60-day reinstatement window. This is a standard settlement dismissal structure in S.D. Texas that gives parties time to execute formal settlement documents. If the deal falls through, Contego can move to reinstate — meaning no rights are permanently extinguished by this order alone.
Settlement dismissalTerms are confidential — public record is silent on consideration
The court record confirms an amicable settlement was reached but discloses no financial terms, licensing obligations, or operational undertakings. It is not known whether the defendants received a licence to US9289353B2, agreed to cease using the accused KYEN or T-Spa pedicure products, or paid a lump-sum royalty. The ‘without prejudice’ label here reflects the reinstatement condition — it does not indicate a voluntary dismissal without terms.
Confidential termsContego exits with an unlitigated patent and confidential deal
Because no court ruled on validity or infringement, US9289353B2 remains unchallenged on the merits. Contego retains full enforcement rights and, assuming the settlement is consummated, achieves resolution against this defendant group without trial risk. Early settlement also preserves the patent’s deterrence value for future enforcement actions against other salon operators using the same equipment.
Patent intactNo precedent set — but Contego’s enforcement posture is clear
This case signals that Contego Spa Designs is actively enforcing US9289353B2 against nail salon operators using competing pedicure spa products. The swift settlement, rather than a validity challenge, suggests defendants found it commercially preferable to resolve quickly. Nail salon operators and pedicure spa distributors using KYEN or T-Spa equipment should treat this case as a material enforcement signal and consider an FTO review.
Active enforcerFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Contego Spa Designs, Inc. | Company | Pedicure spa equipment manufacturer — holder of US9289353B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Malibu Nail Lounge | Individual | Texas nail salon operator and associated individual owners/investorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Anna Nguyen | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Dung Tran | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Hoa Do | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | M Nails Investment LLC dba Malibu Nail Lounge | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Peter Truong | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Does 1-10 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alberto Quilaneta Amatong Jr | Attorney | Counsel for Contego Spa Designs, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James K. Sakaguchi | Attorney | Counsel for Contego Spa Designs, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Steven McCoy | 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 | Amatong McCoy LLC | 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 | LaTasha Mabry Snipes | Attorney | Counsel for Malibu Nail LoungeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Russell Frontz | Attorney | Counsel for Malibu Nail LoungeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Polsinelli PC | Law Firm | Representing Malibu Nail LoungeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lee H Rosenthal | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order confirms settlement was reached but is carefully structured: dismissal ‘on the merits, without prejudice’ to reinstatement signals judicial acknowledgment of a consummated deal while preserving a safety valve. No infringement finding, no validity ruling, and no damages determination were made. The court’s note — ‘appreciates the prompt notification’ — is consistent with a clean, uncontested resolution. Neither party can cite this disposition as precedent on the merits of US9289353B2.
US9289353B2 — Pedicure Spa Systems and Hygienic Nail Salon Equipment
US9289353B2, filed under application number US13/795862, protects pedicure spa systems of the type used in commercial nail salons. The patent is held by Contego Spa Designs, Inc. and covers structural and hygienic design elements of pedicure spa equipment — a category that includes the foot basin, chair mechanism, and plumbing or liner configurations that prevent cross-contamination between clients. This technical domain sits at the intersection of personal care equipment and sanitation engineering.
For the nail salon equipment sector, US9289353B2 represents meaningful IP coverage over a product category sold widely to small business operators who rarely conduct independent FTO analysis before procurement. Contego’s willingness to pursue end-user defendants — including individual salon owners — across the KYEN and T-Spa product lines demonstrates active portfolio monetisation. Distributors, importers, and OEM manufacturers of competing pedicure spa products face the greatest long-term exposure if the patent’s claims are broad enough to read on alternative designs.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9289353B2?
Any business sourcing, distributing, or operating pedicure spa equipment — particularly KYEN or T-Spa branded units — should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US9289353B2. Contego has demonstrated it will name both corporate and individual defendants, and the swift settlement in this case suggests defendants found the cost-benefit calculus unfavourable for litigation. Procurement teams, salon franchisors, and nail spa equipment importers are all within the realistic enforcement perimeter.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US9289353B2 against your specific product configuration, flag design-around opportunities, and surface related prior art that could support an invalidity argument if needed. Given that this patent has not been tested in litigation, proactive claim analysis is the most cost-effective risk management step available to companies in this product category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9289353B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar pedicure spa and salon equipment patent cases
Explore related patent infringement actions involving pedicure spa systems and personal care equipment in U.S. district courts, including prior Contego enforcement activity.
What this case signals for the pedicure spa IP landscape
Contego’s fast-settling infringement action confirms a deliberate enforcement strategy targeting salon operators using third-party pedicure spa products.
Active enforcement against end-users, not just equipment makers
Contego targeted the salon operator and its individual principals — not the equipment manufacturer. This end-user enforcement model is commercially efficient: operators have less appetite for costly litigation than manufacturers, making early settlement more likely. Other nail salon operators using accused equipment should take note.
115-day resolution limits prior art and invalidity development
The case closed before any substantive motion practice or IPR petition could be mounted. US9289353B2 exits the litigation without a validity ruling, leaving it as strong a threat as it entered. Competitors and distributors of pedicure spa equipment cannot rely on this case to signal any weakness in the patent.
Contego v Malibu — key questions answered
The case settled. On 7 June 2024, Judge Lee H. Rosenthal dismissed the action after counsel advised the court an amicable settlement had been reached. The dismissal is without prejudice to reinstatement within 60 days if the settlement cannot be consummated. No merits ruling was issued.
Contego asserted US9289353B2 (application no. US13/795862), a patent covering pedicure spa systems used in commercial nail salons. The accused products were identified in the complaint as KYEN pedicure spas and T-Spa pedicure spas operated at the defendants’ Texas salon.
Contego named Anna Nguyen, Dung Tran, Hoa Do, and Peter Truong as individual defendants alongside M Nails Investment LLC dba Malibu Nail Lounge. Naming individuals is a recognised enforcement tactic in patent cases against small businesses — it increases settlement pressure by creating personal liability exposure for principals who may not be shielded by the corporate entity.
No. The case settled before any court ruled on validity, infringement, or damages. US9289353B2 exits the litigation with no adverse finding on the merits. The patent remains fully enforceable and Contego retains all rights to assert it in future actions against other parties.
In this context, ‘without prejudice’ refers to the reinstatement condition — not a dismissal without terms. The order preserves the right of either party to move to reinstate the case within 60 days if the settlement agreement cannot be finalised. It does not mean the defendants were dismissed without giving up anything; the settlement terms, though confidential, are assumed to include consideration from the defendants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.