Contego Spa Designs v. T-Spa Mfg.: Pedicure Basin Patent Settled After 439 Days
Contego Spa Designs, Inc. filed suit against T-Spa Mfg., LLC, T-SPA Depot, LLC, and US Nails Spa, Inc. in the Southern District of Texas, asserting US9289353B2 covering a pedicure basin with overflow protection. The case reached an amicable settlement and was dismissed without prejudice — with a 60-day reinstatement window — after 439 days of litigation.
Spa Equipment IP Dispute Reaches Settlement Before Trial
On March 30, 2023, Contego Spa Designs, Inc. filed a patent infringement action in the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) against three defendants: T-Spa Mfg., LLC, T-SPA Depot, LLC, and US Nails Spa, Inc. The suit centered on US9289353B2, a patent covering a pedicure basin with overflow protection — a safety and hygiene feature central to professional nail spa equipment. The case was assigned to Judge Lee H. Rosenthal.
After 439 days of litigation, counsel for both sides advised the court that an amicable settlement had been reached. On June 11, 2024, Judge Rosenthal dismissed the case on the merits 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 window to reurge them following any reinstatement motion.
The dismissal without prejudice — rather than with prejudice — suggests the parties opted for flexibility while finalising settlement terms, consistent with arrangements where payment schedules or licensing agreements require a brief post-dismissal period to execute. The specific financial terms, any licensing arrangements, and the identities of which defendants bore primary liability are not disclosed in the public record. The court’s notation that it ‘appreciates the prompt notification of settlement’ suggests resolution may have come during or just after active litigation activity.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 439 days
439 days — longer than the median district court IP case resolved by settlement
Settlement reached: what the without-prejudice dismissal means for both parties
Dismissed without prejudice after confirmed settlement
The court dismissed the case ‘on the merits, without prejudice’ upon notification of settlement — a standard procedural posture in the Southern District of Texas. Critically, a 60-day reinstatement window was preserved, meaning if the settlement cannot be consummated (e.g. payment fails or a license is not signed), either party may move to reopen. This structure suggests the deal was agreed in principle but not yet fully executed at the time of dismissal.
Conditional dismissalContego secures resolution — enforcement rights technically preserved
Dismissal without prejudice means Contego Spa Designs retains the theoretical right to refile against these defendants if the settlement collapses within the 60-day window. The patent US9289353B2 remains intact and enforceable. Settlement also avoids the risk of an adverse claim-construction ruling or invalidity finding at trial — outcomes that could have weakened the patent’s commercial value against other potential infringers in the spa equipment space.
Patent survives, rights preservedT-Spa entities resolve without an infringement finding on record
For T-Spa Mfg., T-SPA Depot, and US Nails Spa, settlement before any merits adjudication avoids a formal infringement finding — which would otherwise create a public record usable against them in future proceedings. The without-prejudice dismissal also means no estoppel arises from this case. The terms likely include a license, payment, or product redesign obligation, though the public record does not confirm the specifics.
No infringement finding on recordSettlement signals Contego’s willingness to enforce overflow-protection IP
This case signals that Contego Spa Designs actively monitors and enforces US9289353B2 across the supply chain — targeting a manufacturer (T-Spa Mfg.), a distributor (T-SPA Depot), and a retail operator (US Nails Spa) simultaneously. Competitors designing or distributing pedicure basins with overflow-protection features should treat this case as a clear indication that Contego is prepared to litigate. An FTO assessment against US9289353B2 is advisable for any new product in this category.
Active enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Contego Spa Designs, Inc. | Company | Spa equipment manufacturer and IP holder — holder of US9289353B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | T-Spa Mfg., LLC | Company | Pedicure spa equipment manufacturer, distributor, and retail operator accused of infringementSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | T-SPA Depot, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | US Nails Spa, Inc. | Company | 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 | Clement Asante | Attorney | Counsel for T-Spa Mfg., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | LaTasha Mabry Snipes | Attorney | Counsel for T-Spa Mfg., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Russell Frontz | Attorney | Counsel for T-Spa Mfg., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Polsinelli PC | Law Firm | Representing T-Spa Mfg., LLCSearch 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 self-reported by counsel rather than adjudicated — meaning no merits ruling, claim construction, or invalidity determination was issued. The court’s explicit 60-day reinstatement clause and the 14-day window to reurge pending motions are standard protective mechanisms in the Southern District of Texas, indicating the settlement was agreed in principle but likely not fully executed. The phrase ‘dismissed on the merits, without prejudice’ is slightly unusual phrasing — it preserves the settlement’s finality signal while keeping the reinstatement door open for consummation purposes.
US9289353B2 — Pedicure basin with overflow protection
US9289353B2, filed under application number US13/795862, protects a pedicure basin incorporating overflow protection — a feature designed to prevent water spillage in professional nail spa environments. The patent sits within the broader technical domain of salon and spa equipment engineering, addressing both a functional safety problem and a hygiene compliance concern relevant to commercial nail salon operations. The issued patent designation (B2) indicates it was granted with corrected or amended claims following examination.
For competitors in the pedicure spa equipment market, US9289353B2 represents a meaningful enforcement risk given Contego’s demonstrated willingness to litigate across multiple defendants in a single action. The simultaneous targeting of a manufacturer, distributor, and retail operator in this case suggests Contego views the patent as commercially strategic rather than defensive only. Any company designing, importing, distributing, or retailing pedicure basins with overflow-management systems should conduct a freedom-to-operate review against the issued claims of this patent before commercialisation.
Should you run an FTO against US9289353B2?
If your company manufactures, imports, distributes, or retails pedicure basins — particularly models featuring overflow protection, basin drainage management, or water-containment systems — this patent demands attention. Contego has shown it will pursue the full supply chain, not just the original equipment manufacturer. R&D and product teams developing next-generation pedicure spa units should treat US9289353B2 as a blocking patent until a claim-by-claim FTO analysis confirms otherwise.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US9289353B2 against your product specifications and flag overlap risk before you commit to tooling or distribution agreements. Eureka can also surface related prior art, continuation applications, and family members that may extend Contego’s IP footprint beyond the asserted patent — giving your team a complete picture of the freedom-to-operate landscape in pedicure spa equipment.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9289353B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases in spa and salon equipment: S.D. Texas
Explore patent infringement cases involving spa and nail salon equipment in the Southern District of Texas and comparable U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the spa equipment IP landscape
Contego’s multi-defendant filing reveals a supply-chain enforcement strategy that IP teams in the nail spa equipment sector should not overlook.
Supply-chain sweep: targeting manufacturer, distributor, and retailer together
Filing against all three tiers of the distribution chain simultaneously — manufacturer, distributor, and end-point retailer — is a deliberate enforcement tactic that maximises settlement pressure and limits defendants’ ability to shift blame. Product teams and distributors in the pedicure spa equipment sector should assess their exposure across the full supply chain, not just at the manufacturing level.
Without-prejudice settlement preserves Contego’s future enforcement options
Unlike a with-prejudice dismissal, this outcome leaves Contego free to refile if terms are breached. It also preserves the patent’s litigation record — no adverse ruling, no narrowing claim construction, no invalidity finding. US9289353B2 emerges from this case with its enforceability intact, making it a continued risk for competitors in the overflow-protection pedicure basin space.
Contego v T-Spa — key questions answered
The case settled and was dismissed without prejudice on June 11, 2024, after 439 days. The court preserved a 60-day reinstatement window in case the settlement could not be consummated, and all pending motions were denied without prejudice.
Contego asserted US9289353B2, directed to a pedicure basin with overflow protection, filed under application number US13/795862. The patent covers overflow-protection technology used in professional nail spa pedicure basin equipment.
Dismissed without prejudice means the plaintiff retains the right to refile the action if the settlement is not finalised. In this case, the court explicitly allowed 60 days for reinstatement if the settlement could not be consummated. It does not constitute an adjudication on the merits of the infringement claims.
Filing against the full distribution chain — T-Spa Mfg. (manufacturer), T-SPA Depot (distributor), and US Nails Spa (retailer) — is a common enforcement strategy that maximises settlement leverage and prevents defendants from deflecting liability to other parties in the chain. It also allows the patent holder to pursue damages and injunctive relief at multiple commercialisation points simultaneously.
No. Because the case was resolved by settlement and dismissed without a merits ruling, no court issued a claim construction order or invalidity finding. US9289353B2 remains granted and enforceable. The absence of any adverse ruling on the patent’s validity may strengthen Contego’s position in future enforcement actions against other defendants in the pedicure basin market.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.