Fast IP v. Tishkoff Enterprises: Hands-Free Shoe Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
Three Kizik-aligned patent holders sued Drew Shoe retailer Tishkoff Enterprises in Ohio, asserting two hands-free footwear patents against six Kizik Cage shoe models. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — each side bearing its own costs — just 170 days after filing.
Kizik patent holders and Drew Shoe reach rapid stipulated exit in Ohio
Filed on 16 September 2024 in the Southern District of Ohio, this infringement action was brought by Fast IP LLC, Handsfree Labs Licensing LLC, and Kizik Design LLC — an ensemble of entities closely associated with the Kizik hands-free footwear brand — against Tishkoff Enterprises LLC, which operates under the trade name Drew Shoe. The asserted patents, US10638810B1 and US10973279B2, cover hands-free slip-on footwear technology, and the accused products were the Kizik Cage Connor, Corbin, Caleb, Bobbie, Hobby, and Harmony models.
The case closed on 5 March 2025 via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dismissal with prejudice is legally significant: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, meaning the plaintiffs are permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against Tishkoff Enterprises on these patents. Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting the resolution was negotiated rather than one side capitulating entirely.
The 170-day lifespan is notably short for a two-patent district court infringement case, suggesting the parties moved quickly toward resolution — possibly through a licensing agreement, a supply or distribution arrangement, or a commercial settlement whose terms are not reflected in the public docket. The with-prejudice designation rules out a simple tactical withdrawal, but the absence of any monetary judgment or injunction in the public record leaves the precise commercial outcome undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 170 days
170 days from filing to dismissal — notably swift for a multi-patent infringement action at district court level
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal — permanently closes the action
A stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement of all parties and, when entered with prejudice, constitutes a final judgment on the merits. Neither party can revive these specific claims in federal court. This mechanism is commonly used when parties have reached a private resolution they do not wish to disclose publicly — the court record reflects the exit but not the underlying commercial terms.
Permanent bar on re-filingPlaintiffs accept finality — suggesting a negotiated resolution was reached
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Fast IP, Handsfree Labs Licensing, and Kizik Design permanently relinquished the right to reassert these claims against Tishkoff Enterprises. This typically signals either that the defendant agreed to a licensing or commercial arrangement satisfactory to the plaintiffs, or that the plaintiffs chose certainty over the risk and expense of litigation. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other parties.
Claims extinguished against this defendantDrew Shoe exits with no public judgment — but future exposure from others remains
Tishkoff Enterprises secured a permanent end to this specific action without any public finding of infringement or damages award. The own-costs ruling means no fee-shifting penalty. However, the with-prejudice nature implies both sides accepted finality, which is consistent with a private agreement. Drew Shoe’s exposure to these same patents from other plaintiffs — or from new claims on related patents — is not foreclosed by this dismissal.
No public liability findingSwift resolution signals Kizik’s active IP enforcement posture in footwear
The rapid resolution of this case, combined with the multi-entity plaintiff structure and the breadth of accused Kizik Cage models, suggests the Kizik IP ecosystem is actively monetising or protecting its hands-free footwear patents across the distribution chain. Retailers and distributors handling hands-free shoe products should assess whether their supply arrangements carry indemnification provisions and whether an FTO review of US10638810B1 and US10973279B2 is warranted.
Retailer IP risk flagFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Fast IP, LLC | Company | Kizik-affiliated hands-free footwear IP portfolio holders — holders of US10638810B1 and US10973279B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Handsfree Lab Licensing, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Kizik Design, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Tishkoff Enterprises, LLC | Company | Tishkoff Enterprises LLC d/b/a Drew Shoe — footwear retailer accused of infringing Kizik Cage modelsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea I. Savageau | Attorney | Counsel for Fast IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jared B. Briant | Attorney | Counsel for Fast IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Alan Wolfla | Attorney | Counsel for Fast IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Baker & Daniels LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fast IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fast IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ronald J. Koch. | Attorney | Counsel for Tishkoff Enterprises, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Ohio Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation records a clean, consent-based exit: all three plaintiffs and the defendant jointly agreed to dismiss with prejudice, with no fee-shifting. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the operative legal phrase — it transforms what could have been a tactical withdrawal into a permanent bar on these claims against this defendant. The absence of any damages figure, injunction, or consent judgment in the public record is consistent with a confidential commercial resolution struck between the parties prior to any substantive court rulings.
US10638810B1 & US10973279B2 — hands-free slip-on footwear technology
US10638810B1 and US10973279B2 both originate from application filings in the hands-free footwear domain, covering structural and mechanical innovations that allow a wearer to put on a shoe without using their hands — a category Kizik has commercially developed and branded. The patents sit at the intersection of biomechanical footwear design and consumer convenience, representing a defensible moat in a fast-growing segment of the athletic and everyday footwear market.
The Kizik-affiliated entity structure around these patents — splitting rights across Fast IP, Handsfree Labs Licensing, and Kizik Design — suggests deliberate IP segmentation designed to support licensing programmes and enforcement actions across the supply chain. For competing footwear brands developing any hands-free or easy-entry shoe mechanism, these patents represent high-priority clearance targets. The active enforcement demonstrated in this case against a downstream retailer signals that the patent holders are monitoring the market aggressively.
Should you run an FTO against US10638810B1 and US10973279B2?
Any footwear brand, OEM, or retailer developing or distributing hands-free, slip-on, or easy-entry shoe products should treat these two patents as mandatory FTO targets. This case demonstrates that the Kizik IP ecosystem will pursue not just competing manufacturers but also distributors and retailers — meaning exposure is not limited to those designing competing products. The Kizik Cage model line was itself the accused product, pointing to how broadly the claims may be read.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10638810B1 and US10973279B2 against your product specifications, identify design-around opportunities, and surface any continuation or related applications in the Kizik portfolio that may present additional risk. For R&D teams working on hands-free footwear mechanisms, running this analysis before product launch or retail distribution agreements are signed is strongly advisable given the demonstrated enforcement posture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10638810B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar hands-free footwear patent infringement cases in US district courts
Cases involving hands-free footwear technology patents litigated in US district courts — including Southern District of Ohio enforcement actions and related Kizik IP disputes.
What this case signals for the hands-free footwear IP landscape
A fast, with-prejudice exit by three Kizik-linked entities points to a structured enforcement programme targeting the footwear distribution chain.
Multi-entity plaintiff structures amplify patent enforcement leverage
Fast IP, Handsfree Labs Licensing, and Kizik Design filing jointly suggests a deliberate IP holding structure designed to consolidate hands-free footwear claims. This layered approach — separating design, licensing, and core IP rights across entities — is consistent with a broader monetisation strategy and can complicate defendant invalidity challenges by distributing standing across multiple rights holders.
Retailers, not just manufacturers, are in the infringement crosshairs
The target here was Tishkoff Enterprises, a retailer operating as Drew Shoe — not a competing shoe manufacturer. This signals that Kizik-affiliated entities are willing to pursue downstream distribution channels, not only direct product rivals. Any retailer stocking hands-free footwear products should review their supplier indemnification clauses against US10638810B1 and US10973279B2 specifically.
Fast v Tishkoff — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 5 March 2025 via a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No damages award or injunction was entered in the public record. The dismissal permanently bars the plaintiffs from reasserting the same claims against Tishkoff Enterprises on these patents.
Two patents were asserted: US10638810B1 and US10973279B2, both covering hands-free footwear technology associated with the Kizik brand. The accused products were six Kizik Cage shoe models — the Connor, Corbin, Caleb, Bobbie, Hobby, and Harmony. The plaintiffs included Fast IP LLC, Handsfree Labs Licensing LLC, and Kizik Design LLC.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits. The three plaintiff entities — Fast IP, Handsfree Labs Licensing, and Kizik Design — are permanently barred from filing the same patent infringement claims against Tishkoff Enterprises again. However, the patents US10638810B1 and US10973279B2 remain valid and enforceable against any other party.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the rapid resolution. However, a with-prejudice stipulated dismissal at 170 days — without any substantive court rulings — is consistent with a privately negotiated commercial resolution, such as a licensing agreement or authorised distribution arrangement. The own-costs provision suggests neither side claimed a clear win through litigation.
All three plaintiffs appear to be entities affiliated with the Kizik hands-free footwear brand, collectively holding and licensing IP rights related to hands-free shoe technology. Filing through multiple entities is a common IP holding strategy that can facilitate licensing programmes, separate design and utility patent rights, and distribute standing across rights holders — potentially complicating invalidity challenges.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.