Flated LLC v. Zenliquidator LLC: Inflatable Bed Topper Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Flated LLC filed suit against Zenliquidator LLC in the Northern District of Georgia asserting US12077977B2, a patent covering an inflatable bed topper. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss the action without prejudice under Rule 41 after just 88 days — leaving the door open for future enforcement.
Rapid Dismissal Leaves Inflatable Bed Topper Patent Dispute Unresolved
Flated LLC filed this patent infringement action against Zenliquidator LLC on August 8, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia before Judge Steven D. Grimberg. The complaint asserted US12077977B2, a patent directed to an inflatable bed topper, against Zenliquidator’s competing product in the same category. The case was assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04484 and litigated through Taylor Duma LLP for Flated and Addy Hart LLC for Zenliquidator.
After just 88 days, both parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on November 4, 2025. A dismissal without prejudice means the case is terminated but Flated LLC retains the right to refile the same claims at a future date. No merits ruling was issued, no infringement finding was made, and the validity of US12077977B2 was not adjudicated.
The pace of resolution — under three months — is notably swift and suggests the parties may have reached a private commercial arrangement, though the public record is silent on settlement terms. It is equally possible that Flated conducted additional diligence post-filing and elected to preserve optionality rather than proceed. Because dismissal was without prejudice, the strategic posture of both parties toward this patent remains active and unresolved.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 88 days
88 days — resolved well before trial; district court median is typically 2–3 years
Dismissed without prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): Joint stipulation terminates the case — for now
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), any action may be dismissed by filing a stipulation signed by all appearing parties. This mechanism requires no court approval and takes effect upon filing. Crucially, unless the stipulation expressly states ‘with prejudice,’ dismissal is presumed to be without prejudice — meaning no bar to refiling exists. The court made no ruling on the merits, claim construction, or validity of US12077977B2.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: claims survive — but the public record is silent on why
A dismissal without prejudice is meaningfully different from one with prejudice. With prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits, barring re-litigation. Without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile. Here, the stipulation explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ so Flated LLC retains full enforcement rights under US12077977B2. Whether the dismissal reflects a private settlement, a licensing agreement, or simply a strategic pause is not disclosed in any public filing.
Refiling rights preservedFlated retains full enforcement rights over its inflatable bed topper patent
Flated LLC loses nothing legally by this dismissal. US12077977B2 remains valid and enforceable, and Flated can reassert it against Zenliquidator or any other party at any time within the applicable statute of limitations. If a private resolution was reached — such as a licensing arrangement or product withdrawal — that would represent a commercial win that simply does not appear in the public record. Flated’s IP position is unchanged.
Patent enforceableZenliquidator escapes a merits ruling — but faces ongoing patent exposure
Zenliquidator LLC avoids an infringement finding, an injunction, and any damages award. However, the dismissal without prejudice means it received no declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity. If Zenliquidator continues selling the accused inflatable bed topper product, it remains exposed to a future enforcement action by Flated under the same patent. Competitors in the inflatable sleep accessories space should monitor US12077977B2 and Flated’s broader portfolio.
No invalidity ruling obtainedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Flated LLC | Company | Inflatable sleep products company — holder of US12077977B2 (inflatable bed topper)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Zenliquidator LLC | Company | Zenliquidator LLC — e-commerce/liquidation company accused of infringing inflatable bed topper patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Michael Kuntz | Attorney | Counsel for Flated LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Ray Kuester | Attorney | Counsel for Flated LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John L. North | Attorney | Counsel for Flated LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Taylor Duma LLP | Law Firm | Representing Flated LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Charles Adam Pannell , III | Attorney | Counsel for Zenliquidator LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Janet Pioli | Attorney | Counsel for Zenliquidator LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Meredith Leigh Martin Addy | Attorney | Counsel for Zenliquidator LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Addy Hart LLC | Law Firm | Representing Zenliquidator LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Steven D. Grimberg | Judge | Georgia Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the bilateral dismissal mechanism that requires no judicial approval — only signatures from all appearing parties. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it preserves Flated LLC’s right to refile identical claims and forecloses any res judicata defence for Zenliquidator. The phrasing contains no admission of liability, no covenant not to sue, and no indication of consideration exchanged — all consistent with either a confidential settlement or a strategic pause in enforcement.
US12077977B2 — Inflatable Bed Topper Technology
US12077977B2 (application no. US18/605668) covers an inflatable bed topper — a portable, air-fillable layer designed to supplement or convert an existing sleep surface. Patents in this category typically protect structural configurations, inflation valve mechanisms, material layering, and user interface features that differentiate the product from generic air mattresses. The application number suggests a relatively recent filing, consistent with Flated LLC’s active commercialisation of inflatable sleep accessories.
In the competitive inflatable sleep accessories market — heavily populated by direct-to-consumer and e-commerce brands — a utility patent on a bed topper design can function as a meaningful barrier to entry. Flated LLC’s willingness to file suit rapidly suggests the company views US12077977B2 as a commercially strategic asset, not merely a defensive filing. Competitors, manufacturers, and importers of functionally similar inflatable sleep surface products should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and monitor Flated’s prosecution activity for continuation patents.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US12077977B2?
Any company designing, importing, manufacturing, or distributing inflatable bed toppers or closely related portable sleep surface products in the United States should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US12077977B2. The patent has already been asserted once and survived this litigation cycle with no validity challenge resolved. E-commerce sellers — particularly those sourcing from liquidators or third-party manufacturers — face elevated risk given the profile of the accused party in this case.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US12077977B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may limit claim scope, and surface related Flated LLC continuation applications that may represent additional exposure. Running this analysis before product launch or scaling distribution in the US market is significantly less costly than responding to a future infringement action in the Northern District of Georgia.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12077977B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Inflatable Sleep Accessories Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore patent infringement cases involving inflatable and portable sleep surface products litigated in U.S. district courts, including the Northern District of Georgia.
What this case signals for the inflatable sleep accessories IP landscape
A rapid, mutual dismissal over an inflatable bed topper patent is rarely the end of the story — it is often the beginning of a commercial relationship or a repositioned enforcement strategy.
Without-prejudice dismissals at 88 days often signal undisclosed commercial terms
When both parties jointly exit a patent suit this quickly — before any substantive motions — it typically suggests a negotiated outcome such as a license, royalty arrangement, or product modification. The public record is silent, but the speed and mutual consent are consistent with a commercially driven resolution rather than a litigation victory for either side.
US12077977B2 remains a live enforcement asset for Flated LLC
No invalidity finding, no IPR petition, and no claim construction order were issued. The patent exits this case in the same legal position it entered. Any competitor selling an inflatable bed topper that reads on the claims of US12077977B2 should treat Flated LLC as an active enforcement risk and conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis before scaling distribution.
Flated v Zenliquidator — key questions answered
The dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) means the case was terminated by mutual agreement of both parties without any ruling on the merits. Flated LLC retains the right to refile the same patent infringement claims under US12077977B2 against Zenliquidator LLC or others at a future date. No finding of infringement, invalidity, or non-infringement was made.
Flated LLC asserted US12077977B2 (application no. US18/605668), a U.S. patent covering an inflatable bed topper. The accused product was described as an ‘Inflatable Bed Topper’ sold or distributed by Zenliquidator LLC. The patent remains valid and enforceable following the dismissal.
The public record does not disclose any settlement agreement. The case was terminated by a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice. The rapid resolution — 88 days from filing — is consistent with a private commercial resolution, but no terms have been made public and neither party filed a settlement notice on the docket.
Yes. Because the dismissal was expressly without prejudice, Flated LLC retains full rights to refile infringement claims under US12077977B2 against Zenliquidator LLC within the applicable statute of limitations (generally six years for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 286). Zenliquidator received no declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity.
US12077977B2 is a U.S. utility patent assigned to Flated LLC, filed under application number US18/605668. It relates to an inflatable bed topper — a portable, air-fillable sleep surface accessory. The patent is relatively recent and reflects Flated LLC’s active commercialisation and IP protection strategy in the inflatable sleep accessories market.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.