dbest products v. Aborder Products: Portable Cart Patent Cases Consolidated
dbest products, Inc. filed a second infringement action against Aborder Products, Inc. in the Central District of California, asserting two portable cart patents covering products sold on Amazon. Within 69 days, the court ordered consolidation with a pre-existing related case involving a third dbest cart patent against the same accused products.
Two Amazon cart patent actions merged into one consolidated proceeding
On May 21, 2025, dbest products, Inc. filed a second patent infringement action against Aborder Products, Inc. in the Central District of California (Case No. 2:25-cv-04591), asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 12,275,446 and 12,304,546. Both patents cover portable cart technology. The accused products are the same Aborder portable carts previously accused in an earlier action (the ‘First Action’, filed December 20, 2024) asserting U.S. Patent No. 12,103,576 — all products offered for sale on Amazon.com.
On July 29, 2025 — just 69 days after filing — the court granted a stipulation to consolidate the two related actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The court found the cases shared common questions of law and fact, and that judicial efficiency outweighed any risk of delay, confusion, or prejudice. Case No. 2:25-cv-04591 was administratively closed, with all proceedings to continue under the First Action case number before the same assigned judge.
The rapid consolidation signals that both parties recognised the overlap early and agreed to streamline proceedings. Consolidation is procedural, not a merits ruling — no liability findings, damages, or validity determinations have been made. The public record does not disclose the status of licensing negotiations or whether any settlement discussions are underway in the now-unified proceeding. The combined case now involves three dbest portable cart patents against the same accused Aborder Amazon listings.
Filing to Case Consolidated in 69 days
69 days — resolved to consolidation order faster than the median district court patent case
Case consolidated under Rule 42(a): what the order means for both parties
Rule 42(a) consolidation: two cases become one
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) permits courts to consolidate actions sharing common questions of law or fact. Here, the court found the First and Second Actions involved the same accused Aborder products and overlapping legal issues. The Second Action (this case) is administratively closed; all litigation now proceeds under the First Action docket. No merits ruling was made.
Procedural — no liability findingdbest gains a unified, multi-patent enforcement platform
Consolidation allows dbest products to press three portable cart patents — US12,103,576, US12,275,446, and US12,304,546 — against Aborder in a single proceeding. This typically increases settlement leverage and reduces the risk of inconsistent rulings on the same accused products. Prosecution of all infringement claims can now be coordinated under one discovery and trial schedule.
Stronger enforcement postureAborder now faces a three-patent consolidated challenge
Aborder Products must now defend against a broader patent portfolio in a single action, which may raise litigation costs and complicate invalidity or non-infringement strategies. Consolidation also means Aborder cannot use procedural separation to delay or narrow the claims addressed at trial. The same accused Amazon-listed products remain at issue across all three asserted patents.
Elevated defence complexityAmazon-channel cart sellers face coordinated multi-patent risk
The consolidation of three portable cart patents against products sold via Amazon.com suggests dbest is pursuing a systematic enforcement strategy targeting online marketplace competitors. Other Amazon sellers in the portable cart and folding cart category should treat this consolidation as a signal to audit their product designs against dbest’s growing patent portfolio, which now spans at least three granted US patents.
Amazon-channel IP riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | dbest products, Inc. | Company | Portable cart manufacturer and patent holder — asserts US12275446B2 and US12304546B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Aborder Products, Inc. | Company | Aborder Products, Inc. — seller of portable carts on Amazon.com accused of infringementSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bruce G. Chapman | Attorney | Counsel for dbest products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David A. Randall | Attorney | Counsel for dbest products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ehab M. Samuel | Attorney | Counsel for dbest products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Orbit IP LLP | Law Firm | Representing dbest products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s consolidation order is procedural rather than substantive — it reflects a finding of shared factual and legal questions under Rule 42(a), not a determination of infringement or validity. The explicit reference to the same accused Amazon products across both actions reinforces that the three dbest patents will be tested against identical Aborder merchandise. The administrative closure of this docket should not be read as a favourable outcome for either party; the core infringement dispute remains fully live in the First Action.
US12275446B2 & US12304546B1 — Portable Cart Technology
U.S. Patent Nos. 12,275,446 and 12,304,546 are the two patents asserted in this Second Action, both assigned to dbest products, Inc. and covering portable cart technology. These grants, bearing high sequential patent numbers, are relatively recent issuances, suggesting they derive from a filing or continuation strategy designed to extend protection over portable cart designs. Both patents were filed under application numbers traceable to U.S. prosecution history. The technology domain — portable and folding carts — is commercially active in the direct-to-consumer and Amazon marketplace segments.
Strategically, the issuance of multiple patents covering variations of portable cart technology gives dbest a layered enforcement position. A competitor designing around one patent may inadvertently infringe another in the same family. Combined with the earlier-asserted US12,103,576 in the First Action, dbest now holds at least three granted patents it is actively asserting against the same product line. For competitors operating in the portable cart, shopping trolley, or folding utility cart market — particularly those selling via Amazon — this portfolio represents a material IP risk requiring proactive monitoring and claim analysis.
Should your portable cart products be cleared against US12275446 and US12304546?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or selling portable carts — especially through Amazon.com or similar e-commerce channels — should treat the dbest v. Aborder litigation as a prompt to conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US12,275,446B2 and US12,304,546B1. The consolidation of three patents in a single action against one set of products signals that dbest is prepared to enforce broadly, and the Amazon marketplace is clearly within the enforcement target zone.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product specifications against the claim language of all three asserted dbest patents simultaneously, flagging overlap risks and identifying design-around opportunities. Eureka also tracks continuation applications in the same family, so you receive early warning if dbest files additional patents extending coverage before your product launch. Request an FTO analysis through the Eureka platform to quantify your exposure before the consolidated trial proceeds.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12275446B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar portable cart patent infringement cases in C.D. California
Explore related Amazon marketplace patent enforcement actions and portable cart IP disputes litigated in the Central District of California.
What this case signals for the portable cart and Amazon marketplace IP landscape
Three patents, one defendant, one Amazon channel. dbest’s consolidation strategy sets a template for IP enforcement against online resellers.
Multi-patent filing sequences amplify Amazon enforcement leverage
dbest filed a second action barely five months after the first, adding two new patents against the same products. This continuation-style filing sequence, followed by consolidation, concentrates maximum patent exposure on a single defendant. Companies selling through Amazon should monitor plaintiff patent portfolios for continuation filings that could reopen or expand existing disputes.
Stipulated consolidation resolves administrative closure — not the underlying infringement claims
The closure of Case No. 2:25-cv-04591 is purely administrative. Infringement, validity, and damages remain live in the consolidated First Action. Tracking the docket of the First Action is essential for anyone monitoring the outcome — this case’s ‘closed’ status can be misleading without that context.
dbest v Aborder — key questions answered
The court administratively closed Case No. 2:25-cv-04591 after consolidating it with a related earlier action (the ‘First Action’) under Rule 42(a). dbest products had filed the Second Action asserting US12,275,446 and US12,304,546 against Aborder’s portable carts sold on Amazon. No merits ruling was made; the infringement dispute continues under the First Action docket.
Across both actions, dbest products asserts three U.S. patents: US12,103,576 (First Action), and US12,275,446B2 and US12,304,546B1 (Second Action, now consolidated). All three patents relate to portable cart technology and are directed at the same Aborder products sold on Amazon.com.
Consolidation under Rule 42(a) merges the two actions for all purposes — discovery, motions, and trial. The administrative closure of the Second Action does not end the litigation; Aborder still faces infringement claims across all three dbest patents in the surviving First Action docket. The court found judicial efficiency outweighed any prejudice from consolidation.
The court found that the First and Second Actions shared common questions of law and fact — specifically, the same accused Aborder portable cart products sold on Amazon and overlapping infringement and validity issues. A stipulation by both parties to consolidate supported the finding of good cause under Rule 42(a)(2), and the court determined efficiency interests outweighed any minimal risk of delay or confusion.
The dbest v. Aborder litigation targets products offered for sale specifically on Amazon.com. dbest’s enforcement of three portable cart patents against an Amazon seller suggests that online marketplace distribution does not shield sellers from infringement exposure. Other Amazon sellers in the portable, folding, or utility cart category should consider an FTO review against dbest’s patent portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.