Contempo Card v. Superior Bindery & Revolutionary Clinics: Vault Box™ Patent Settled
Contempo Card Co. brought a patent infringement action in Massachusetts against Superior Bindery, Inc. and Revolutionary Clinics II, Inc. over US11358763B2, a patent covering the Vault Box™ packaging product. After 707 days of litigation, the parties reached a settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Vault Box™ patent dispute ends in confidential settlement after nearly two years
On 29 August 2023, Contempo Card Co. filed a patent infringement action in the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:23-cv-11990) before Judge Patti B. Saris. The plaintiff asserted US11358763B2 — a patent tied to the Vault Box™ product — against two defendants: Superior Bindery, Inc., a bindery and packaging company, and Revolutionary Clinics II, Inc., a cannabis dispensary operator. The dual-defendant structure suggests the alleged infringement involved both a manufacturer and an end-user or retail operator.
The case closed on 5 August 2025 when the parties jointly notified the Court of a settlement agreement and filed a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dismissal with prejudice means Contempo Card cannot re-file the same claims against these defendants, which typically reflects a final resolution — commonly a financial payment, licensing arrangement, or binding operational commitment — rather than a simple walkaway.
The 707-day duration suggests the parties engaged in substantive litigation — likely including discovery and potentially claim construction activity — before reaching terms. The specific financial or licensing terms of the settlement remain confidential, as is standard for Rule 41 stipulated dismissals. What drove the ultimate resolution, including whether any royalty arrangement or design-around was agreed, is not discernible from the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 707 days
707 days — nearly two years of litigation before settlement was reached
Dismissed with prejudice: what the settled outcome means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): stipulated dismissal with prejudice
A Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is filed by joint stipulation of all parties and requires no court order. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical qualifier: it bars Contempo Card from re-asserting the same infringement claims against these defendants in any future action. This mechanism is the standard procedural vehicle for closing a case after a binding settlement is reached.
Permanent bar on re-filingContempo Card secures finality — at a price of confidentiality
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Contempo Card gave up the right to re-litigate these claims against Superior Bindery and Revolutionary Clinics. That concession typically reflects receipt of meaningful consideration — whether a lump-sum payment, a licence, or a cessation of allegedly infringing activity. The patent US11358763B2 itself is not invalidated and remains enforceable against third parties.
Patent remains enforceableDefendants exit litigation with permanent protection from these claims
Both Superior Bindery and Revolutionary Clinics obtain a permanent shield against re-assertion of the same Vault Box™ patent claims by Contempo Card. Whether that protection came with a licence to continue using the patented technology, or required a design-around or cessation of the product, is not reflected in the public record. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal is the most favourable outcome short of invalidation.
Claims permanently resolvedVault Box™ IP still active — other market players remain at risk
The settlement resolves only the dispute with these two defendants. US11358763B2 remains a live, enforceable patent that Contempo Card could assert against other packaging manufacturers or cannabis-sector operators using comparable products. Companies in the specialty packaging or regulated retail sectors — particularly cannabis dispensaries procuring proprietary packaging — should assess their exposure to this patent before sourcing similar solutions.
Third-party risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Contempo Card, Co. | Company | Specialty packaging innovator — holder of US11358763B2 covering the Vault Box™Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Superior Bindery, Inc. | Company | Superior Bindery, Inc. (packaging manufacturer) and Revolutionary Clinics II, Inc. (cannabis retail operator)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Revolutionary Clinics II, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jodi-Ann McLane | Attorney | Counsel for Contempo Card, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kenneth W. Cohen | Attorney | Counsel for Contempo Card, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Epstein Drangel LLP | Law Firm | Representing Contempo Card, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brendan M. Shortell | Attorney | Counsel for Superior Bindery, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David J. Connaughton , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Superior Bindery, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Justin P. Tinger | Attorney | Counsel for Superior Bindery, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lambert Shortell & Connaughton | Law Firm | Representing Superior Bindery, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Patti B. Saris | Judge | Massachusetts District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint notice recites a settlement agreement as the predicate and invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the stipulated dismissal mechanism requiring all parties’ consent. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, permanently extinguishing Contempo Card’s right to re-assert these specific claims against these defendants. No invalidity finding or non-infringement ruling was made — the patent’s validity and scope are unaffected as against the broader market.
US11358763B2 — Vault Box™ specialty packaging innovation
US11358763B2 (application number US16/978533) is the patent at the centre of this dispute, asserted by Contempo Card Co. in connection with its Vault Box™ product line. The application number prefix (16/978533) is consistent with a national phase or standard utility application filed in the US. The patent covers innovations in the Vault Box™ — a specialty packaging format likely designed for secure, tamper-evident, or branded retail use, with particular relevance in regulated product markets such as cannabis retail.
The Vault Box™ context and the identity of defendant Revolutionary Clinics II — a cannabis dispensary — strongly suggest this patent protects a packaging solution positioned for regulated retail environments where compliance, branding, and product integrity are commercially critical. In a sector where differentiated packaging commands premium positioning and may be required by state regulations, a design-protected or functionally patented packaging product represents meaningful competitive IP. Enforcement against both a manufacturer and an operator indicates Contempo Card is actively managing its patent portfolio.
Should you run an FTO against US11358763B2 before sourcing Vault Box™-style packaging?
Any company manufacturing, distributing, or retailing products in secure or specialty packaging formats — particularly in the cannabis, pharmaceutical, or regulated consumer goods sectors — should assess its exposure to US11358763B2. This case demonstrates that Contempo Card is willing to pursue both upstream manufacturers and downstream retail operators. A Freedom-to-Operate analysis is especially urgent for cannabis dispensaries and their packaging suppliers given the dual-defendant enforcement model used here.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US11358763B2 against your specific packaging design, surfacing prior art, prosecution history disclaimers, and competing patent families in a fraction of the time of traditional manual review. Use Eureka to generate a structured clearance report and identify design-around opportunities before committing to a packaging specification or launching a new product line in this space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11358763B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar specialty packaging patent cases in Massachusetts federal courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving specialty packaging technology litigated in the District of Massachusetts and related federal venues.
What this case signals for the specialty packaging IP landscape
A with-prejudice settlement after nearly two years of litigation suggests this patent carries commercial weight worth defending — and licensing.
Dual-defendant structure signals manufacturer-retailer enforcement strategy
Naming both a packaging manufacturer and a cannabis retail end-user in the same action is a deliberate enforcement posture. It maximises settlement leverage by exposing the entire supply chain to liability simultaneously. Companies sourcing speciality packaging should ensure their suppliers provide IP indemnification — or conduct independent FTO clearance.
With-prejudice dismissal confirms settlement value — patent remains live
The concession of a with-prejudice bar typically reflects meaningful consideration paid or received. Crucially, US11358763B2 was not invalidated and was not disclaimed. Competitors and cannabis operators using Vault Box™-style packaging should treat this patent as actively enforced and assess their own clearance position before procurement or product launch.
Contempo v Superior — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 5 August 2025 following a settlement agreement between the parties. The dismissal was filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) as a stipulated joint notice. The financial or licensing terms of the settlement are not publicly disclosed.
Contempo Card asserted US11358763B2 (application US16/978533), a patent covering the Vault Box™ specialty packaging product. The patent remains enforceable and was not invalidated as part of the settlement.
Revolutionary Clinics II, Inc. is a cannabis dispensary operator. Patent holders frequently pursue end-users as co-defendants alongside manufacturers to maximise enforcement leverage and ensure the entire commercial supply chain is subject to the litigation. This is a recognised enforcement strategy in product patent cases.
Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars the plaintiff from re-asserting the same patent claims against the same defendants. It is treated as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. It does not invalidate the patent, which remains enforceable against third parties.
No. The settlement resolves only the claims between Contempo Card and these two defendants. US11358763B2 was not challenged via IPR or declared invalid, and no disclaimer was entered. The patent remains fully enforceable against other parties operating in the specialty packaging space.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.