Evolutive Labs v. Ringo Products: Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice
Evolutive Labs Co., Ltd. filed suit against Ringo Products, LLC in the Delaware District Court asserting US12119678B2 against the Ringo water bottle. After 219 days, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice — leaving the door open for refiling.
Water bottle patent suit ends in voluntary withdrawal — but not closure
On May 7, 2025, Evolutive Labs Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement complaint against Ringo Products, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Colm F. Connolly. The asserted patent, US12119678B2 (application no. US18/318743), covers water bottle technology, and the accused product is the Ringo water bottle marketed and sold by the defendant.
On December 8, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), terminating the action without prejudice. This procedural mechanism allows a plaintiff to exit litigation unilaterally before the defendant has served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Critically, dismissal without prejudice means the claims have not been adjudicated on the merits — Evolutive Labs retains the right to reassert US12119678B2 against Ringo Products or others in a future action.
The 219-day arc from filing to dismissal suggests the case resolved — or was set aside — before substantive motion practice concluded. The public record is silent on whether the parties reached a commercial arrangement, whether claim construction or prior art considerations prompted the withdrawal, or whether licensing discussions are ongoing. The without-prejudice designation keeps meaningful strategic uncertainty intact for Ringo Products.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 219 days
219 days from filing to voluntary dismissal — relatively swift resolution at first instance
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice status means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): a unilateral exit before answer
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is the earliest and cleanest form of voluntary dismissal — no judicial approval required. The case closes procedurally, but no merits ruling is issued and no legal rights are extinguished.
No merits adjudicationDismissed without prejudice: the distinction matters
A dismissal without prejudice means Evolutive Labs may refile the same infringement claims against Ringo Products in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. A dismissal with prejudice, by contrast, would bar refiling permanently. The filed notice explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ so the public record is clear on this point — the patent holder’s enforcement rights are preserved.
Refiling rights preservedRingo Products escapes judgment — but faces residual uncertainty
Ringo Products obtains dismissal of the immediate action without any adverse finding on infringement or validity. However, the without-prejudice status means this is not a clean bill of health. The Ringo water bottle could face reassertion of US12119678B2 at any time. Prudent IP strategy suggests Ringo Products should assess its freedom-to-operate position under the asserted patent notwithstanding the dismissal.
No infringement finding — risk remainsSettlement, licensing, or strategic pause? The record is silent
Voluntary dismissals at this stage frequently — though not always — reflect a negotiated resolution, licensing agreement, or commercial settlement reached outside the court record. Equally, they can signal a plaintiff reassessing claim strength, funding, or litigation strategy. Without a separate disclosure, the true commercial driver is unknown. Competitors in the water bottle and consumer hydration space should monitor US12119678B2 for any continuation activity or future enforcement.
Driver undisclosed — monitor patentFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Evolutive Labs Co., Ltd. | Company | Water bottle technology company — holder of US12119678B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ringo Products, LLC | Company | Consumer products company; maker and seller of the Ringo water bottleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gerard M. O’Rourke | Attorney | Counsel for Evolutive Labs Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sean T. O’Kelly | Attorney | Counsel for Evolutive Labs Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | O’Kelly & O’Rourke LLC | Law Firm | Representing Evolutive Labs Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Terisa Shoremount | Attorney | Counsel for Ringo Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas A. Uebler | Attorney | Counsel for Ringo Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC | Law Firm | Representing Ringo Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Colm F. Connolly | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning the court issued no ruling on infringement, validity, or claim scope. US12119678B2 stands unchallenged by any judicial determination. For Ringo Products, there is no estoppel or res judicata protection. For Evolutive Labs, all enforcement rights under the patent remain intact. The timing — filed December 8, closed December 12 — indicates the court accepted the notice with no procedural objection.
US12119678B2 — water bottle technology patent
US12119678B2, filed under application number US18/318743, is the sole patent asserted in this action. The patent sits within the consumer goods and hydration products domain, covering technology embodied in or applicable to water bottles. Without access to the full claim set, the specific novel features — whether structural, functional, material-based, or relating to sealing or dispensing mechanisms — cannot be precisely characterised from the public litigation record alone.
Despite the without-prejudice dismissal, US12119678B2 retains its full enforceability. For companies active in the consumer water bottle, hydration vessel, or reusable drinkware segment, this patent represents a live enforcement risk. The relatively recent application number (US18/318743) suggests a filing within the past several years, consistent with a patent that may still be within its most commercially active enforcement window. Monitoring the patent family for continuations or related applications is advisable for any competitor in this space.
Should your product team run an FTO against US12119678B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or selling water bottles or reusable drinkware with features that could overlap with the claims of US12119678B2 should consider a freedom-to-operate assessment. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case means Evolutive Labs has demonstrated willingness to litigate and retains the right to refile. R&D teams developing new hydration product lines should not treat this dismissal as prior art clearance or an enforcement moratorium.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map the claims of US12119678B2 against their specific product configurations, identify prior art that could inform invalidity arguments, and monitor the patent family for continuation activity. Running a structured FTO now — before a second complaint is filed — is materially less costly than responding to infringement allegations during active litigation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12119678B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: water bottle and consumer product IP in Delaware
Explore comparable water bottle and consumer goods patent disputes filed in Delaware District Court, including cases involving voluntary dismissal and Rule 41 exits.
What this case signals for the consumer hydration and water bottle IP landscape
A without-prejudice exit preserves enforcement options and signals this patent remains commercially live for the sector.
Without-prejudice dismissals are not resolved disputes — treat them as paused ones
US12119678B2 remains enforceable and Evolutive Labs retains standing to refile. Companies in the water bottle and consumer hydration segment operating products with similar functionality should not interpret this dismissal as a safe harbour. A freedom-to-operate review against the asserted claims remains prudent.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) signals early-stage resolution — before discovery costs bite
Dismissal under this rule, available only before an answer is filed, suggests the parties reached whatever outcome they needed swiftly. This is consistent with a licensing conversation or a reassessment of litigation economics. Delaware District Court, Judge Connolly’s docket in particular, is known for active case management that can accelerate early resolution pressure.
Evolutive v Ringo — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff Evolutive Labs filed a voluntary dismissal notice on December 8, 2025 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) expressly stating ‘without prejudice.’ This means Evolutive Labs retains the right to refile infringement claims based on US12119678B2 against Ringo Products in a future action.
Evolutive Labs asserted US12119678B2 (application no. US18/318743), a patent covering water bottle technology. The accused product was the Ringo water bottle sold by defendant Ringo Products, LLC. No judicial ruling on infringement or validity was issued before the voluntary dismissal.
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is filed unilaterally by the plaintiff before the defendant answers. It terminates the current action but, when filed without prejudice, does not bar refiling. For Ringo Products, this means no infringement finding was made, but the patent threat has not been extinguished. The company has no estoppel protection against a future suit on the same patent.
Yes. Because the dismissal was entered without prejudice, Evolutive Labs is not barred from reasserting US12119678B2 against Ringo Products, subject to applicable statutes of limitations for patent infringement (generally six years for damages under 35 U.S.C. § 286). The patent itself remains enforceable and no claim was adjudicated on the merits.
The case (No. 1:25-cv-00564) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly. The case was filed on May 7, 2025 and closed December 12, 2025, spanning approximately 219 days before voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.