E. Mishan & Sons v. Mark Feldstein & Associates: Four-Patent Car Handle Dispute Dismissed
E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. filed suit against Mark Feldstein & Associates in the Northern District of Ohio asserting four patents — two design and two utility — covering the MFA Car Handle product. The case closed after just 114 days when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).
A Four-Patent Car Handle Dispute That Ended Before It Began
On January 16, 2024, E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. — a consumer products company and holder of two design patents (USD743324, USD766809) and two utility patents (US9533611, US9403466) — filed an infringement action against Mark Feldstein & Associates in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio before Judge Jack Zouhary. The complaint centred on the MFA Car Handle, a mobility-assist product, and alleged that the defendant’s product infringed all four asserted patents.
The case ended on May 9, 2024, just 114 days after filing, when E. Mishan & Sons filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) without prejudice. A without-prejudice dismissal means the plaintiff has not forfeited its claims; it retains the legal right to refile the same infringement allegations against the same defendant at a future date, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
A resolution this early — before any substantive motion practice or claim construction — is consistent with pre-trial settlement discussions, licensing negotiations, or a strategic reassessment of the litigation position. The public record does not disclose the specific reason for dismissal, leaving open whether the parties reached a private commercial agreement or whether the plaintiff chose to pause the action for tactical reasons.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 114 days
114-day lifespan — well under the median district court patent case duration of 2–3 years
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41(a) exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal — no merits adjudicated
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is a procedural exit — no court has ruled on validity, infringement, or enforceability of any of the four asserted patents. The case closes on the plaintiff’s initiative alone.
Procedural exit, no merits rulingWithout prejudice: the distinction matters significantly
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would permanently bar refiling. The notice in this case expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning E. Mishan & Sons retains full rights to reassert all four patents against Mark Feldstein & Associates in future litigation, subject to statutes of limitations.
Plaintiff may refileNo infringement finding — but exposure remains open
Mark Feldstein & Associates obtains a clean exit from this particular proceeding with no adverse judgment, no injunction, and no damages award. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, the defendant cannot treat this as final resolution. The four asserted patents remain in force and the threat of refiling persists, which typically keeps commercial and product decisions under continued IP pressure.
No judgment, exposure persistsEarly exit suggests negotiation or strategic repositioning
A dismissal within 114 days — before claim construction or any substantive hearing — is broadly consistent with settlement, licensing, or a plaintiff decision to reassess claim strength. For competitors in the mobility-assist handle and consumer ergonomic product space, the survival of all four patents without any validity challenge means these patents remain fully enforceable and represent an active portfolio risk.
Portfolio risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. | Company | Consumer products company — holder of USD743324, US9533611, US9403466, USD766809Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Mark Feldstein & Associates | Company | Mark Feldstein & Associates — consumer product distributor, maker of the accused MFA Car HandleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian J. Doyle | Attorney | Counsel for E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Zaccaria | Attorney | Counsel for E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin M. Norchi | Attorney | Counsel for E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP | Law Firm | Representing E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Notaro, Michalos & Zaccaria (Orangeburg) | Law Firm | Representing E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregg W. Emch | Attorney | Counsel for Mark Feldstein & AssociatesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph W. Tucker | Attorney | Counsel for Mark Feldstein & AssociatesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd | Law Firm | Representing Mark Feldstein & AssociatesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd – Toledo | Law Firm | Representing Mark Feldstein & AssociatesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jack Zouhary | Judge | Ohio Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a) expressly and states ‘without prejudice,’ which is the operative legal language. No merits determination — on infringement, validity, or claim scope — was reached by the court. The practical effect is that all four asserted patents (USD743324, US9533611, US9403466, USD766809) remain valid, enforceable, and unlitigated on their substance, leaving the defendant and market participants with no judicial guidance on claim scope or strength.
USD743324, US9533611, US9403466 & USD766809 — MFA Car Handle Patents
The asserted portfolio comprises four patents filed across application numbers US29/517992, US15/163802, US14/819878, and US29/534989. Two are design patents (USD743324 and USD766809) protecting the ornamental appearance of the car handle device; two are utility patents (US9533611 and US9403466) protecting functional and structural aspects of the mobility-assist grip. The combination of design and utility protection reflects a layered IP strategy across both aesthetic and mechanical dimensions of the product.
Mobility-assist car handles are a growing category within the aging-in-place and consumer accessibility market. Controlling both the visual design and the mechanical functionality of a leading product in this space through a four-patent portfolio creates significant barriers for competitors. Any product that replicates the look of the patented handle risks design patent infringement; any product that mirrors the core mechanical architecture risks utility patent infringement, making design-arounds on only one axis insufficient for clearance.
Should you run an FTO against USD743324, US9533611, US9403466 and USD766809?
Any company developing, importing, or distributing car handle assist devices, vehicle entry grip products, or adjacent mobility-assist accessories should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against this four-patent portfolio. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case confirms that E. Mishan & Sons is actively monitoring the market and willing to litigate. The patents have not been invalidated and their claim scope remains untested by any court.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s design and functional features against the claim language of all four asserted patents, identify prior art that could narrow their scope, and flag prosecution history estoppel that may limit infringement theories. Given the dual design-plus-utility structure of this portfolio, a comprehensive FTO should analyse ornamental similarity and functional equivalence independently.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0743324S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Car Handle & Consumer Product Patent Cases in Federal District Courts
Cases involving design and utility patent assertions over consumer mobility-assist products in the Northern District of Ohio and comparable federal venues.
What this case signals for the consumer mobility-assist product IP landscape
Four patents asserted in 114 days, then withdrawn — a pattern that warrants close monitoring by product teams and competitors alike.
Without-prejudice exits preserve full enforcement optionality
E. Mishan & Sons retains the right to refile against Mark Feldstein & Associates or to assert the same four patents against other parties. Companies distributing comparable car handle or mobility-assist grip products should treat this case as an early signal, not a resolved threat. The patents remain active and unchallenged on the merits.
Dual design + utility patent strategy raises the enforcement ceiling
Asserting two design patents alongside two utility patents in the same action is a deliberate strategy to maximise exposure — design patents allow disgorgement of total article profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, while utility patents support lost profits and reasonable royalty theories. Any competitor selling a visually or functionally similar car handle product faces a multi-vector infringement risk.
E. v Mark — key questions answered
E. Mishan & Sons asserted four patents: design patents USD743324 and USD766809, and utility patents US9533611 and US9403466. All four cover aspects of the MFA Car Handle product — the design patents protect ornamental appearance and the utility patents protect functional and structural features.
The plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) stating the dismissal was without prejudice. The public record does not disclose the underlying reason — possibilities consistent with this outcome include settlement, private licensing, or a strategic decision to pause litigation. No merits ruling was issued by the court.
No. A without-prejudice dismissal does not bar E. Mishan & Sons from refiling the same claims. All four asserted patents remain valid and enforceable. The plaintiff retains the right to reinitiate litigation against Mark Feldstein & Associates or other parties, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
Asserting design and utility patents together maximises damages exposure and narrows design-around options for defendants. Design patents (under 35 U.S.C. § 289) allow recovery of total profits from an infringing article, while utility patents support lost profits and reasonable royalty theories. A defendant must independently clear both protection layers to avoid liability.
Plaintiff E. Mishan & Sons was represented by Brian J. Doyle, John Zaccaria, and Kevin M. Norchi of Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP and Notaro, Michalos & Zaccaria. Defendant Mark Feldstein & Associates was represented by Gregg W. Emch and Joseph W. Tucker of MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd in Toledo, Ohio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.