In a case that underscores the volatile landscape of consumer product patent enforcement, Guangzhou Haoshi Trading Co., Ltd. filed suit against dbest products, Inc. and individual defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 8, 2023, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,233,700 B1, directed to shopping cart technology. After 315 days of proceedings — including competing motions to dismiss and a motion for sanctions — the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss on July 18, 2024, and the court ordered the case closed on July 19, 2024, with all pending motions denied without prejudice.

This outcome carries meaningful strategic signals for IP professionals monitoring patent enforcement in the competitive consumer goods and e-commerce supply chain sector. The voluntary dismissal without prejudice preserves Haoshi’s ability to refile, making this case a critical data point for companies assessing their freedom-to-operate exposure in shopping cart and utility cart product categories. Attorneys and in-house IP teams should closely examine the procedural posture — particularly the denied motions for sanctions — when evaluating litigation risk and settlement leverage in comparable disputes.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

U.S. Patent No. 9,233,700 B1 (Application No. 14/523,911) covers an invention in the field of shopping carts or utility cart assemblies, protecting specific structural or mechanical innovations that distinguish the patented cart design from prior art. The patent’s claims likely address features such as the cart’s folding mechanism, frame configuration, wheel assembly, or load-bearing structure — key engineering elements that differentiate functional consumer carts in the marketplace. Real-world applications include collapsible shopping trolleys and multi-use utility carts sold through retail and e-commerce platforms, a highly competitive product category with significant IP enforcement activity.

• • US9233700B1

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Counsel: Intelink Law Group PC (lead: Lisbeth Bosshart Merrill)
Defendant Counsel: Orbit IP LLP (lead: David A. Randall)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Case No. 2:23-cv-07487 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — one of the busiest and most plaintiff-friendly federal venues for patent infringement actions, particularly those involving consumer goods imported from China or sold through major U.S. e-commerce platforms. As a first-instance trial court proceeding, this case represents the initial adjudication of the infringement dispute, meaning no appellate precedent was generated and any future refiling would begin anew at the district level.

The case ran for 315 days — roughly ten months — from filing on September 8, 2023, to closure on July 19, 2024, a duration consistent with early-stage settlement or voluntary dismissal rather than a case proceeding to claim construction or trial. Notably, the docket reflects significant pretrial motion activity: Defendant dbest filed both a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 17) and a Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 25), while individual defendant Richard Elden filed a separate Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 26). All were rendered moot and denied without prejudice when the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss on July 18, 2024 — suggesting the parties reached an off-record resolution before the court could rule on these potentially dispositive motions.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case was ordered closed by the Central District of California pursuant to the parties’ joint stipulation to dismiss filed on July 18, 2024 (Dkt. No. 35), resulting in a dismissal without prejudice. No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief was granted, and no merits-based ruling was issued on the infringement claims or the pending motions. All pending motions — including dbest’s Motion to Dismiss, dbest’s Motion for Sanctions, and Richard Elden’s Motion to Dismiss — were denied without prejudice as moot.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The infringement action centered on U.S. Patent No. 9,233,700 B1 and culminated in a procedural resolution driven by the following key dynamics:

• Guangzhou Haoshi Trading Co. alleged that dbest products, Inc. and the Elden defendants infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,233,700 B1 through the manufacture, sale, or importation of competing shopping cart products, placing the dispute squarely in the competitive consumer goods patent enforcement space.
• Defendant dbest products filed a Motion to Dismiss and a separate Motion for Sanctions, signaling that the defense challenged both the legal sufficiency of Haoshi’s infringement claims and potentially the propriety of the litigation itself — an aggressive posture that may have influenced the plaintiff’s calculus in agreeing to a joint dismissal.
• Individual defendant Richard Elden filed his own Motion to Dismiss, suggesting that personal liability exposure for a corporate officer or principal was contested, a common defensive tactic in patent cases involving smaller consumer product companies.
• The joint stipulation to dismiss without prejudice — agreed to by all parties — foreclosed a merits ruling but preserved Haoshi’s right to refile, leaving the underlying infringement question unresolved and the patent’s enforceability untested in this proceeding.

Legal Significance

1. A dismissal without prejudice does not constitute an adjudication on the merits, meaning U.S. Patent No. 9,233,700 B1 remains unchallenged and potentially enforceable, and Guangzhou Haoshi retains the right to reassert infringement claims against dbest or other parties in a future action.
2. The denial of dbest’s Motion for Sanctions without prejudice is procedurally significant: while the motion was not adjudicated on its merits, the filing signals that defendants in consumer product patent cases are increasingly deploying sanctions threats as litigation leverage tools, a trend attorneys should monitor in cross-border IP disputes.
3. The filing of separate motions to dismiss by the corporate defendant and the individual defendant Richard Elden illustrates the growing importance of officer/director liability theories in patent enforcement against smaller consumer goods companies, a strategy with implications for how plaintiffs structure complaints and defendants structure their corporate defenses.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys:

• When drafting complaints in consumer product patent cases involving both corporate and individual defendants, ensure that the jurisdictional and infringement allegations for each defendant are independently supported to withstand separate motions to dismiss targeting distinct theories of liability.
• The simultaneous filing of a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Sanctions by dbest reflects a high-pressure defensive strategy; plaintiff’s counsel should anticipate this dual-track approach in cross-border patent cases and prepare early to rebut sanctions arguments under Rule 11 or 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
• Given that the case closed via joint stipulation before any claim construction or merits ruling, any future litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,233,700 B1 will lack the benefit of prior claim construction guidance — counsel should prepare comprehensive Markman submissions from the outset of any refiled action.
• The relatively short duration of 315 days to voluntary dismissal suggests that early case assessment and pre-trial motion practice can decisively shift settlement dynamics; litigators should use the first 90 days strategically to file dispositive motions that increase settlement leverage.

For IP Professionals:

• In-house IP teams at consumer goods companies operating in the shopping cart and utility cart space should map their product designs against U.S. Patent No. 9,233,700 B1, which remains active and unlitigated on the merits, and conduct a proactive FTO analysis before launching new SKUs in the U.S. market.
• The dismissal without prejudice means this dispute is not resolved — portfolio managers should monitor Guangzhou Haoshi Trading Co.’s litigation activity and any continuation or divisional patent filings stemming from Application No. 14/523,911 to anticipate potential re-enforcement actions.

For R&D Teams:

• Product teams developing or sourcing shopping carts, utility trolleys, or folding cart assemblies for the U.S. market should commission a freedom-to-operate review focused on the structural and mechanical claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,233,700 B1 prior to finalizing product specifications or entering supply agreements.
• The unresolved nature of this case means design-around strategies were never tested in court; R&D teams should document engineering decisions that differentiate their products from the patented claims, creating a contemporaneous record that supports invalidity or non-infringement arguments if a future suit is filed.