FIGS, Inc. v. Nu Luxe: Medical Scrub Design Patents Voluntarily Dismissed
FIGS, Inc. asserted three design patents covering its Casma, Leon, and Livingston scrub lines against Nu Luxe in the Southern District of Texas. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 127 days after filing, leaving all patent claims unresolved on the merits.
FIGS drops scrub design patent suit against Nu Luxe at 127 days
On September 11, 2024, FIGS, Inc. — the Los Angeles-based medical apparel brand — filed a design patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 4:24-cv-03395) against Nu Luxe and unnamed Does 1–10. FIGS alleged infringement of three design patents: USD0949516S (Casma Scrub), USD0950196S (Leon Scrub), and USD0948170S (Livingston Scrub Pants), each protecting distinctive ornamental features of its branded healthcare workwear.
On January 14, 2025, FIGS filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and Judge Alfred H. Bennett entered the dismissal order on January 16, 2025. The dismissal was entered pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — meaning it was filed before the defendant served an answer or a motion for summary judgment — and was without prejudice. No merits ruling, claim construction order, or fee award was issued.
The 127-day lifespan and without-prejudice posture suggest the parties may have reached a private resolution, or FIGS elected to withdraw rather than proceed. The public record does not confirm a settlement. Because Nu Luxe apparently never filed a responsive pleading, FIGS retained the right to refile identical claims, though any future suit would face scrutiny of the delay. The absence of defendant counsel on record is consistent with a defendant that never formally engaged in the litigation.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 127 days
127 days — resolved before any substantive ruling, well under median district court litigation timelines
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): the plaintiff’s unilateral exit right
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. This is an automatic dismissal — the court has no discretion to deny it. Judge Bennett’s order confirms the procedural posture: Nu Luxe never filed a responsive pleading, enabling FIGS to exit unilaterally.
No court discretion appliedWithout prejudice confirmed — but the record is silent on why
A dismissal without prejudice means FIGS’ design patent claims are not extinguished — the company retains the legal right to refile. A dismissal with prejudice would have barred refiling permanently. The court order expressly states ‘without prejudice.’ However, the public record does not disclose whether a private settlement was reached, a licence was granted, or FIGS simply chose to withdraw. These are materially different outcomes with different commercial implications, and the filing itself provides no clarity.
Refiling right preservedNu Luxe faces no injunction or damages — for now
Because the case was dismissed without prejudice before any merits ruling, Nu Luxe faces no court-ordered damages, royalty obligations, or injunctive relief from this action. No finding of infringement or validity was made. However, the without-prejudice dismissal means FIGS could refile, and any continued sale of products resembling the asserted designs would carry renewed litigation risk. The absence of defendant counsel on record suggests Nu Luxe may not have been actively defending.
No liability finding enteredFIGS’ design IP strategy remains intact and unresolved
The three asserted design patents — covering the Casma, Leon, and Livingston scrub lines — emerge from this litigation with their validity untested and their enforceability unchanged. For competitors and manufacturers in the medical apparel space, this case signals that FIGS is willing to assert design IP but does not confirm the strength of the underlying patents. The real enforceability question remains open until a case proceeds to claim construction or trial.
Design patent validity untestedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | FIGS, Inc. | Company | Medical apparel brand — holder of USD0949516S, USD0950196S, and USD0948170S scrub design patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nu Luxe | Individual | Nu Luxe — apparel company accused of infringing FIGS scrub ornamental designsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Does 1-10 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brent H. Blakely | Attorney | Counsel for FIGS, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Brent H. Blakely | Law Firm | Representing FIGS, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alfred H Bennett | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) automatic dismissal — entered because Nu Luxe had not yet served an answer or summary judgment motion, giving FIGS the unilateral right to exit without court approval. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ language preserves FIGS’ right to refile all three design patent claims. Critically, the order contains no findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope, meaning neither party can cite this proceeding as precedent on the merits of the asserted design patents.
USD0949516S, USD0950196S & USD0948170S — FIGS scrub apparel design patents
The three asserted patents — USD0949516S (App. No. 29/704,057), USD0950196S (App. No. 29/704,068), and USD0948170S (App. No. 29/704,045) — are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of FIGS’ Casma Scrub, Leon Scrub, and Livingston Scrub Pants respectively. U.S. design patents protect only the non-functional, visual characteristics of a product. Infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary purchaser would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design.
For the medical apparel sector, where brand differentiation increasingly relies on distinctive silhouettes and design language, design patent portfolios like FIGS’ represent a meaningful competitive moat. The application numbers (29/704,045–068) suggest the three patents were filed as a coordinated family, consistent with a deliberate strategy to lock down the visual identity of a product line. Competitors offering scrub styles with similar pocket placement, panelling, or silhouette features should treat these patents as active enforcement risks, particularly given FIGS’ demonstrated willingness to litigate.
Should you run an FTO against USD0949516S, USD0950196S, and USD0948170S?
Any brand, manufacturer, or private-label supplier developing medical scrub tops or pants with design features that could be compared to the Casma, Leon, or Livingston lines should consider a freedom-to-operate assessment against all three patents. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case means FIGS can refile — and the absence of a merits ruling means no invalidity findings have been established that could be used as a shield.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental claim scope of each design patent, identify prior art that may limit their coverage, and surface any continuation or related design applications in the FIGS portfolio. For product teams finalising scrub designs intended for the U.S. market, running this analysis before launch is materially lower cost than defending a future infringement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0949516S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in medical apparel and scrubwear
Cases involving design patent assertions over medical scrub and healthcare apparel designs in U.S. district courts, including the Southern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the medical apparel design patent landscape
FIGS’ rapid withdrawal preserves optionality but leaves competitors uncertain about the enforceability of its scrub design portfolio.
Without-prejudice exits are a common pressure tool in design patent disputes
Filing and then voluntarily dismissing before a defendant answers is a recognised enforcement pattern — it can achieve deterrence or prompt a private resolution without the expense of full litigation. FIGS’ three-patent assertion across multiple product lines suggests a coordinated design IP strategy rather than an isolated enforcement action.
No defendant counsel on record heightens uncertainty about outcome
Nu Luxe apparently never engaged counsel or filed a responsive pleading during the 127-day case window. This unusual posture could reflect a default risk, a rapid private deal, or an inability to mount a defence. It also means no invalidity arguments or prior art positions were placed on the public record, leaving FIGS’ design patents unchallenged.
FIGS v Nu — key questions answered
FIGS filed a design patent infringement action against Nu Luxe in the Southern District of Texas on September 11, 2024, asserting three design patents covering its Casma, Leon, and Livingston scrub products. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on January 16, 2025, after 127 days, before Nu Luxe filed any responsive pleading.
A dismissal without prejudice means FIGS’ infringement claims were not decided on the merits and were not extinguished. FIGS retains the legal right to refile suit asserting the same three design patents against Nu Luxe. By contrast, a dismissal with prejudice would have permanently barred refiling. The public record does not confirm whether a private settlement was reached.
FIGS asserted three U.S. design patents: USD0949516S (App. No. 29/704,057) covering the Casma Scrub; USD0950196S (App. No. 29/704,068) covering the Leon Scrub; and USD0948170S (App. No. 29/704,045) covering the Livingston Scrub Pants. All three protect the ornamental appearance of FIGS’ scrub apparel and were filed as a coordinated patent family.
No. The case was dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before any merits ruling. No claim construction, infringement finding, or invalidity determination was made. The three asserted design patents emerge from this litigation with their validity and enforceability entirely untested by the court.
The public record shows no defendant counsel or responsive pleading filed by Nu Luxe during the 127-day case. This posture is consistent with a defendant that either reached a rapid private agreement with FIGS, defaulted, or lacked resources to mount a formal defence. It also means no invalidity arguments or prior art challenges were placed on the record, leaving FIGS’ design patents with no public counter-evidence on file.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.