Contego Spa Designs v. Voncii: Spa Basin Liner Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Contego Spa Designs filed suit against Voncii in the Eastern District of Missouri asserting US11083668B2, covering flexible dual-layer liners for spa basins, a hygiene-critical component in nail salon pedicure equipment. The parties resolved the dispute in 222 days under a confidential settlement, with all claims and counterclaims dismissed with prejudice.
A hygiene-tech patent dispute resolved quietly but conclusively
On 21 August 2024, Contego Spa Designs, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Voncii, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:24-cv-01140), before Judge Shirley Padmore Mensah. The suit centred on US11083668B2, a patent claiming a flexible liner with distinct inner and outer layers designed for use with a liquid-receiving basin — the type of disposable or replaceable sanitary liner used in pedicure spa chairs.
The case closed on 31 March 2025, 222 days after filing, when the parties jointly invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss the entire action. Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice as to specific accused products identified in a separate, confidential settlement agreement. Defendant Voncii’s counterclaims were likewise dismissed with prejudice. Dismissal with prejudice means Contego cannot re-file the same claims against the same accused products — a meaningful concession that typically reflects negotiated licensing or product design changes.
A 222-day resolution is notably swift for patent litigation, suggesting the parties likely reached a commercial accommodation before significant discovery costs accumulated. The confidential nature of the settlement leaves the specific financial terms, licensing royalties, and product modifications — if any — unknown from the public record. The limitation of prejudice to ‘specific accused products’ rather than all possible Voncii products is a detail worth noting: it may preserve Contego’s right to assert the patent against future Voncii products not captured by the settlement.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 222 days
222 days — faster than the median U.S. patent case, suggesting early settlement pressure
Dismissed with prejudice: what the settlement structure means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): joint stipulated dismissal with prejudice
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), all parties signed a stipulation of dismissal — no court order required, and no merits adjudication occurred. Dismissal with prejudice bars Contego from re-asserting identical claims against the same accused Voncii products in future litigation. This is a standard mechanism for patent settlements, providing finality to both sides without judicial finding on validity or infringement.
Stipulated — no merits rulingContego retains patent; prejudice scoped to specific accused products
Contego’s claims are dismissed with prejudice only as to the specific accused products named in the confidential settlement. US11083668B2 itself remains valid and enforceable. This product-scoped framing suggests Contego preserved the right to assert the patent against future Voncii products or against third parties. The confidential settlement likely reflects a licensing fee, royalty arrangement, or design-around commitment from Voncii — though the public record is silent on financial terms.
Patent survives; enforcement preservedVoncii’s counterclaims extinguished; no invalidity finding on record
Voncii’s counterclaims — likely including invalidity or non-infringement defences — were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Voncii cannot re-litigate those specific counterclaims. Critically, no court ruled the patent invalid or not infringed, so Voncii cannot point to this case as precedent against the patent. Voncii appears to have obtained certainty regarding the specific accused products, consistent with a licence or design-change commitment, but faces continued exposure if it launches new liner products.
No invalidity ruling; counterclaims closedUS11083668B2 stands enforceable — a live risk for all liner suppliers
Because the case settled without a validity ruling, US11083668B2 emerges fully intact. Any competitor supplying flexible dual-layer liners for pedicure spa basins faces the same enforcement risk that Voncii faced. The swift 222-day resolution with prejudice suggests Contego has an effective assertion strategy, and the confidential product-scoped settlement may embolden further enforcement actions. Suppliers and distributors in the nail salon equipment space should treat this patent as active and enforced.
Patent intact — sector-wide exposureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Contego Spa Designs, Inc. | Company | Spa hygiene equipment manufacturer — holder of US11083668B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Voncii, LLC | Company | Voncii, LLC — supplier of spa and nail salon equipment productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron E. Schwartz | Attorney | Counsel for Contego Spa Designs, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Sakaguchi | 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 | LASHER HOLZAPFEL | 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 | Charles C. McCloskey , IV | Attorney | Counsel for Voncii, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Law Office of Charles C. McCloskey, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Voncii, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Shirley Padmore Mensah | Judge | Missouri Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order, entered jointly under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), contains a notable structural precision: Contego’s prejudice is expressly scoped to ‘specific accused products identified in a separate confidential settlement agreement’ rather than all Voncii products or the patent claims broadly. This drafting choice is deliberate — it forecloses relitigation of the settled products while preserving Contego’s enforcement rights against new or unidentified products. No court ruled on infringement, validity, or claim scope, so neither party can invoke this proceeding as legal precedent on the patent’s merits.
US11083668B2 — Flexible dual-layer liner for spa pedicure basins
US11083668B2, filed under application number US17/153642, protects a flexible liner featuring distinct inner and outer layers engineered for use inside a liquid-receiving basin — the water basin of a pedicure spa chair. The dual-layer architecture is central to the claim: it differentiates this liner design from generic single-layer covers and is likely aimed at hygiene performance, structural integrity during water use, and ease of replacement between clients. The patent sits in the intersection of disposable medical-adjacent consumables and salon equipment design.
For the nail salon and spa equipment sector, hygiene-certified consumables are both a regulatory concern and a commercial differentiator. Contego’s enforcement of this patent against Voncii signals that the company views US11083668B2 as a genuine competitive moat, not merely a defensive asset. Any supplier manufacturing or importing flexible basin liners with comparable inner-outer layer construction — including OEM producers in Asia supplying U.S. distributors — should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk. The absence of a post-grant IPR or validity challenge on the public record further reinforces the patent’s current strength.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11083668B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing flexible liners for pedicure spa basins in the U.S. market should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US11083668B2. The patent has now been actively enforced, and the settlement’s product-scoped terms mean the risk extends beyond Voncii’s specific products. Importers, private-label brands, and OEM suppliers serving U.S. nail salon chains are particularly exposed if their liner products incorporate a discernible inner and outer layer boundary in a basin-contacting configuration.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product architecture against the independent and dependent claims of US11083668B2, surface prior art that might support a design-around, and flag related Contego patent filings that could expand the enforcement perimeter. Running this analysis before product launch — or before entering U.S. distribution agreements — is significantly less costly than responding to an infringement complaint in the Eastern District of Missouri.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11083668B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar spa equipment and salon hygiene patent disputes
Cases involving spa basin liner and nail salon equipment patents in U.S. district courts, including enforcement actions by hygiene product IP holders.
What this case signals for the spa hygiene IP landscape
A fast, quiet settlement with prejudice typically means the patent worked as intended — and the threat remains live for the rest of the market.
Product-scoped dismissals preserve future enforcement leverage
Contego’s decision to limit the with-prejudice scope to ‘specific accused products’ is strategically significant. It signals a deliberate enforcement posture: resolve individual disputes commercially while keeping the patent viable against the broader market. Competitors in the spa liner supply chain should not read this settlement as a sign that the patent is weak or exhausted.
No invalidity record means US11083668B2 carries full presumption of validity
Voncii’s counterclaims — almost certainly including an invalidity challenge — were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. No court assessed the patent’s claims. US11083668B2 thus enters the post-litigation market with its presumption of validity fully intact and no prior art of record from this proceeding, raising the cost of any future challenger’s IPR strategy.
Contego v Voncii — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 31 March 2025, approximately 222 days after filing. Under a joint stipulation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Contego’s claims were dismissed with prejudice as to specific accused Voncii products identified in a confidential settlement agreement, and Voncii’s counterclaims were also dismissed with prejudice. No court ruled on the merits of infringement or patent validity.
Contego asserted US11083668B2, filed under application number US17/153642. The patent covers a flexible liner with distinct inner and outer layers designed for use with a liquid-receiving basin — specifically the type of sanitary liner used in pedicure spa chair basins in nail salons. The patent remains valid and enforceable following the dismissal.
This formulation means Contego is barred from reasserting the same patent claims against the specific Voncii products named in the confidential settlement agreement. However, the dismissal does not extend to all possible Voncii products or to third parties. US11083668B2 itself is unaffected — Contego can and may enforce it against other competitors or against future Voncii products not covered by the settlement.
No. The case settled before any merits adjudication. No court issued a ruling on patent validity, claim construction, or infringement. Voncii’s counterclaims — which likely included invalidity defences — were dismissed with prejudice under the settlement, meaning no invalidity finding was made and the patent’s presumption of validity is fully intact.
US11083668B2 is now a demonstrated enforcement asset. Contego has shown willingness to litigate and has secured a with-prejudice settlement within 222 days. Any manufacturer, importer, or distributor of flexible dual-layer liners for pedicure spa basins in the U.S. faces potential exposure to the same patent. A freedom-to-operate analysis against US11083668B2 is advisable before entering or expanding in this product category.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.