Davis & Yorgie LLC v. Changzhou Haoling: Consent Judgment in 116 Days
Floyd A. Davis III and Yorgie LLC sued eight affiliated entities led by Changzhou Haoling Vehicle Industry Company over the LAST BOKS® truck-bed caddy, asserting US10647241 plus trade dress and copyright claims. The defendants admitted infringement and consented to a permanent injunction, resolving the case in under four months.
Truck-bed caddy innovator secures admission of infringement and permanent bar
Filed on January 26, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, this action pitted Floyd A. Davis III and his company Yorgie LLC against eight entities collectively referred to as the Haoling Companies, led by Chinese manufacturer Changzhou Haoling Vehicle Industry Company Limited. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ 48-inch truck-bed caddy — sold under product codes including LYAPX1021 and MO-2451 — infringed US10647241, the registered trade dress of the LAST BOKS® brand, and Yorgie LLC’s copyright registration VA 2-266-577.
The case concluded on May 21, 2024, via a consent judgment that is notably stronger than a typical settlement dismissal. Two of the eight defendants — Changzhou Haoling and Mod Vanten Inc. — expressly admitted to infringing the patent, the trade dress, and the copyrights. All eight entities consented to a permanent injunction prohibiting manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of the accused product and any confusingly similar truck-bed caddy. The defendants also waived any right to challenge the validity or enforceability of the patent, trade dress, or copyright in any future forum.
Resolution in just 116 days, without any reported claim construction briefing or inter partes review filing, suggests the defendants assessed their exposure early and determined that contesting liability was commercially untenable. The public record does not disclose any monetary damages figure, royalty rate, or licensing arrangement, leaving the financial terms of the settlement confidential. The court retained jurisdiction solely for enforcement purposes, indicating the plaintiffs secured meaningful ongoing protection against future breach.
Filing to Consent Judgment in 116 days
116 days — faster than the median Illinois Northern District patent case, suggesting early settlement leverage.
Consent judgment with prejudice: what the order means for both sides
Consent judgment dismissed with prejudice — and far more
A dismissal with prejudice under a consent judgment bars the plaintiffs from re-filing the same claims. Here, however, the order goes further: it incorporates a permanent injunction enforceable by contempt, admissions of infringement by two defendants, and a covenant by all eight defendants never to challenge the patent, trade dress, or copyright. The court retains jurisdiction specifically to enforce these terms — giving the Davis Entities a direct enforcement path without needing to file a new action.
Dismissed with prejudice + permanent injunctionDavis Entities obtain injunction, admissions, and validity bar
The consent judgment delivers three layers of protection for the Davis Entities. First, the permanent injunction covers not just the specific accused SKUs but any truck-bed caddy confusingly similar to the LAST BOKS® trade dress — providing broad forward-looking coverage. Second, explicit admissions of infringement by Changzhou Haoling and Mod Vanten create a factual record useful in future enforcement. Third, the validity challenge bar forecloses IPR or declaratory judgment attacks from any Haoling affiliate.
Injunction + admissions securedEight entities permanently barred and estopped from future challenges
All eight Haoling-affiliated companies are permanently enjoined from making, selling, importing, or advertising the accused product or any similar truck-bed caddy in the United States. Two entities admitted infringement on the record. Critically, all defendants — and their successors, affiliates, and anyone acting in concert — are barred from ever challenging the validity or enforceability of US10647241 or the associated copyright and trade dress in any forum. The absence of a disclosed damages payment is the principal concession obtained by the defendants.
Permanent bar + validity estoppelEnforced IP perimeter around the LAST BOKS® truck caddy category
The consent judgment, combined with the broad injunction covering confusingly similar products, effectively creates an IP perimeter around the truck-bed caddy market segment occupied by LAST BOKS®. Competitors and importers of similar 48-inch truck organizer products should note that the patent, trade dress, and copyright have now been tested — if informally — and survived. Any future entrant distributing aesthetically similar products in the U.S. market faces a strengthened enforcement posture backed by court-entered findings.
Strengthened enforcement postureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Floyd A Davis, III | Individual | Inventor and IP holder of US10647241 — LAST BOKS® truck-bed caddy systemSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Yorgie LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Changzhou Haoling Vehicle Industry Company Limited | Company | Chinese manufacturer and seven U.S. retail affiliates selling infringing 48-inch truck-bed caddies.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Ainuosen LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Fametrade LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Mod Vanten Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Scarman LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Seven Blacksmiths LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Vermeyen LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Wofeili LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eric V.C. Jansson | Attorney | Counsel for Floyd A Davis, IIISearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Molly H. McKinley | Attorney | Counsel for Floyd A Davis, IIISearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter N. Jansson | Attorney | Counsel for Floyd A Davis, IIISearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Floyd A Davis, IIISearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jansson Munger McKinley & Shape Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Floyd A Davis, IIISearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Craig D. Leavell | Attorney | Counsel for Changzhou Haoling Vehicle Industry Company LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Barnes & Thornburg, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Changzhou Haoling Vehicle Industry Company LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Matthew F. Kennelly | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The consent judgment is unusually detailed for a settlement-based dismissal. The court did not merely dismiss the case — it entered a standalone permanent injunction, accepted admissions of infringement from two defendants, and recorded a validity challenge bar binding all eight entities and their successors. This scope suggests the Davis Entities negotiated from a position of strength, likely because the accused product codes were identifiable, the patent claims were straightforward to map, and the defendants had limited invalidity arguments. The financial terms remain undisclosed, consistent with private settlement negotiations, but the injunctive and estoppel provisions provide durable, court-enforceable protection.
US10647241B2 — LAST BOKS® truck-bed caddy structural design
US10647241B2, filed under application number US15/621573, protects the structural design and configuration of a truck-bed caddy — a modular organizer system designed to fit within a standard pickup truck bed. The patent is held by Floyd A. Davis III and was central to the infringement claims against the Haoling Companies’ 48-inch truck-bed caddy. The fact that two defendants admitted infringement without any reported claim construction proceeding suggests the patent claims are written with sufficient specificity to make design-around difficult at the 48-inch form factor.
For competitors operating in the truck accessories and pickup truck organizer market, US10647241 now carries enhanced strategic weight. The consent judgment — with its admissions of infringement and challenge bar — means the patent has effectively survived adversarial scrutiny, even if not through a formal validity ruling. Any manufacturer or importer developing a similar truck-bed caddy product for the U.S. market should treat this patent as an active and enforced IP right. The trade dress protection layered on top further constrains the visual design space available to competing products.
Should you run an FTO against US10647241B2 before launching a truck-bed caddy?
Any company developing, importing, or retailing a truck-bed organizer or caddy product in the U.S. market — particularly 48-inch format products — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US10647241B2 before launch. The consent judgment means the patent holder has demonstrated willingness and ability to enforce across an eight-entity defendant network, and the broad injunction language covering ‘any other product infringing the ‘241 Patent’ signals aggressive future enforcement intent.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map their truck-bed caddy designs against the claim scope of US10647241B2, identify potential design-around opportunities, and assess whether proposed product configurations fall within the injunction’s coverage. Eureka also surfaces the full family of related applications and any pending continuations that may extend protection, giving your team a complete IP clearance picture before any product enters the U.S. market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10647241B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: truck accessory and consumer goods enforcement in Illinois
These cases share key features with this Illinois Northern District action: consumer product design patents, multi-entity import defendants, and consent or early-resolution outcomes.
What this case signals for the truck accessory and imported consumer goods IP landscape
A rapid consent judgment with admissions signals that well-documented IP portfolios can force early capitulation even against multi-entity overseas supply chains.
Multi-party infringement strategies can accelerate settlement
By naming the Chinese manufacturer and all seven U.S. retail and distribution affiliates simultaneously, the Davis Entities created coordinated exposure across the entire supply chain. This structure typically pressures defendants to settle quickly because each entity faces injunctive risk and cannot rely on others to bear the litigation cost.
Overlapping IP — patent + trade dress + copyright — raises enforcement leverage
Asserting three independent IP rights simultaneously means that even if a defendant could design around the patent, it must also clear trade dress and copyright hurdles. This layered approach is consistent with the rapid admission of infringement here and is a model worth replicating for consumer product innovators facing copycat imports.
III v Changzhou — key questions answered
The court entered a consent judgment on May 21, 2024, permanently enjoining all eight Haoling-affiliated defendants from making, selling, importing, or advertising the accused 48-inch truck-bed caddy or any confusingly similar product. Two defendants admitted infringement of US10647241, the Davis Trade Dress, and copyright registration VA 2-266-577. Each party bore its own costs and fees.
US10647241B2 (application US15/621573), held by Floyd A. Davis III, covers the structural design and configuration of a truck-bed caddy system — specifically the LAST BOKS® 48-inch truck-bed organizer. The patent formed Count I of the complaint, with trade dress and copyright claims asserted alongside it.
Yes. Changzhou Haoling Vehicle Industry Company Limited and Mod Vanten Inc. expressly admitted to infringing US10647241, the Davis Trade Dress, and the copyrights under registration VA 2-266-577. All eight defendants consented to the permanent injunction and waived the right to challenge the validity or enforceability of those IP rights in any future forum.
No. Under paragraph 9 of the consent judgment, all eight Haoling Companies, their affiliates, successors, and anyone acting in concert with them are barred from challenging the validity or enforceability of the ‘241 patent, the copyright registration, or the Davis Trade Dress in any forum. This estoppel provision is court-ordered and enforceable by contempt.
The case closed in 116 days from filing — faster than most Illinois Northern District patent cases that proceed to claim construction. This timeline suggests the defendants assessed early that contesting infringement was commercially untenable, likely given the specificity of the patent claims, identifiable product codes, and the coordinated exposure of all eight entities across the supply chain.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.