Hills Point Industries v. Just For Love: Rug Gripper Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Hills Point Industries LLC brought a patent dispute in the Delaware District Court against Just For Love, LLC over US11141013B2, a patent covering rug gripper technology, targeting the commercially prominent Gorilla Grip Rug Gripper product. After 810 days of litigation, the parties reached a negotiated resolution and jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, with each side bearing its own legal costs.
Rug Gripper Patent Battle Ends in Stipulated Dismissal After 810 Days
Filed on 22 September 2022 in the District of Delaware before Judge Jennifer L. Hall, this action pitted Hills Point Industries LLC — the holder of US11141013B2 covering rug gripper anchoring technology — against Just For Love, LLC. The dispute centred on Just For Love’s Gorilla Commerce Gorilla Grip Rug Gripper product, identified across four specific Amazon ASINs, which Hills Point alleged fell within the scope of its patent. The case was framed as a declaratory judgment action, suggesting that Just For Love may have sought to resolve patent exposure proactively, or that counterclaims shaped the procedural posture.
On 10 December 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissing the action in its entirety with prejudice, covering all claims and counterclaims, with no right of appeal. The court retained jurisdiction over the parties’ settlement agreement — a standard provision indicating a confidential commercial settlement underpins the dismissal. Each party agreed to bear its own fees and costs, which typically signals a negotiated compromise rather than a clear win for either side.
At 810 days, the case ran longer than many stipulated-dismissal patent actions, suggesting substantive claim construction or licensing discussions likely preceded the eventual settlement. The retention of court jurisdiction over the settlement agreement is notable: it gives either party a streamlined enforcement mechanism if the other defaults on settlement terms, without requiring a fresh lawsuit. The precise financial or licensing terms remain undisclosed, as is standard in commercially settled patent disputes.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 810 days
810 days litigated — above the median for resolved Delaware District Court patent cases
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: what the settlement structure means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a signed stipulation from all parties. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is critical: Hills Point cannot re-file the same patent claims against Just For Love for the same accused products. The court’s retention of jurisdiction over the settlement agreement transforms what would otherwise be a simple closure into an enforceable consent arrangement — breach of settlement terms can be addressed directly by the court without initiating new litigation.
Permanent bar on re-filingHills Point secures closure but surrenders future infringement claims
For Hills Point Industries, the with-prejudice dismissal means the underlying patent US11141013B2 remains valid and enforceable against the market broadly, but the specific claims against Just For Love and the Gorilla Grip Rug Gripper product lines at issue are permanently resolved. The settlement agreement — the terms of which are not publicly disclosed — likely includes licensing, royalty, or product modification terms. Each party bearing its own costs suggests Hills Point did not extract a fee-shifting award.
Patent survives; claims extinguishedJust For Love resolves infringement exposure with no public admission
For Just For Love, dismissal with prejudice provides certainty: Hills Point cannot reassert these claims over the same Gorilla Grip products. No court finding of infringement was made, and no public liability was established. The confidential settlement likely defines the commercial terms on which Just For Love may continue product operations. The equal cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a mutual compromise, though the underlying settlement terms could include royalty obligations not visible in the public record.
No public infringement findingNon-slip rug gripper IP: enforcement risk remains for the broader market
US11141013B2 exits this litigation validated — no invalidity finding was entered. Other sellers of rug gripper products, particularly those operating under the Gorilla Commerce brand or competing directly on Amazon, should note that Hills Point demonstrated willingness to enforce aggressively. The ASIN-level specificity of the complaint suggests Hills Point has monitoring capabilities targeting e-commerce listings. Competitors in the home goods non-slip accessory space should assess their FTO exposure against this patent.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hills Point Industries LLC | Company | Patent holder in non-slip rug anchoring technology — holder of US11141013B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Just For Love, LLC | Company | Just For Love, LLC — seller of the Gorilla Grip Rug Gripper product via Amazon marketplaceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cameron Paul Clark | Attorney | Counsel for Hills Point Industries LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jack B. Blumenfeld | Attorney | Counsel for Hills Point Industries LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Flynn | Attorney | Counsel for Hills Point Industries LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hills Point Industries LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexandra K. Kim | Attorney | Counsel for Just For Love, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Russell | Attorney | Counsel for Just For Love, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John W. Custer | Attorney | Counsel for Just For Love, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Karen Elizabeth Keller | Attorney | Counsel for Just For Love, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael A. Albert | Attorney | Counsel for Just For Love, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathan Roger Hoeschen | Attorney | Counsel for Just For Love, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Suresh S. Rav | Attorney | Counsel for Just For Love, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shaw Keller LLP | Law Firm | Representing Just For Love, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jennifer L. Hall | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, including all claims and counterclaims, without right of appeal’ — is deliberately comprehensive. The inclusion of counterclaims in the dismissal scope confirms that Just For Love had asserted its own claims, likely challenging the validity or enforceability of US11141013B2. By dismissing with prejudice on both sides, neither party can resurrect any aspect of this dispute. The court’s retained jurisdiction over the settlement agreement is the operative control mechanism going forward.
US11141013B2 — Non-slip rug gripper anchoring technology
US11141013B2, filed under application number US17/191883, protects innovations in rug gripper and non-slip anchoring technology — a product category addressing the practical problem of rugs and mats shifting on hard floor surfaces. The patent’s B2 designation indicates it issued with an examination search report, reflecting substantive USPTO scrutiny of the claims. The technology sits at the intersection of home safety and household accessories, a high-volume e-commerce category with numerous competing SKUs across Amazon and major retail channels.
The strategic significance of this patent lies in its applicability to a broadly commoditised product category where design differentiation is limited and IP protection is one of the few durable competitive barriers. Hills Point’s willingness to litigate for over two years — and to target a commercially prominent product like the Gorilla Grip Rug Gripper by ASIN — signals an active enforcement posture. For brands in the non-slip mat, rug pad, and floor accessory segment, this patent represents a genuine clearance risk that warrants independent claim mapping.
Should your rug gripper or non-slip mat product be cleared against US11141013B2?
Any company designing, sourcing, or selling rug grippers, non-slip mat underliners, or similar floor anchoring accessories — particularly via Amazon or major retail channels — should treat US11141013B2 as a live FTO risk. Hills Point demonstrated in this case that it actively monitors Amazon product listings at the ASIN level and is willing to pursue multi-year litigation in Delaware. The lack of any invalidity finding means the patent’s claims stand as issued, without any judicially narrowed scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the granted claims of US11141013B2 against your product specifications, identify the closest prior art that could support a design-around strategy, and surface any post-grant proceedings that may affect claim scope. For product teams developing the next generation of rug grip accessories, running an automated FTO before finalising design specifications is the most cost-effective risk mitigation available.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11141013B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: rug gripper and home accessories IP in Delaware District Court
Browse related patent enforcement actions involving non-slip and floor accessory technology filed in the Delaware District Court and comparable jurisdictions.
What this case signals for the home goods and e-commerce patent IP landscape
Patent enforcement targeting Amazon ASIN-level product listings is an emerging and operationally precise strategy that home goods brands cannot afford to ignore.
ASIN-level targeting signals sophisticated e-commerce patent enforcement
Hills Point’s complaint identified four specific Amazon ASINs, reflecting a monitoring strategy that maps patent claims to live product listings. Brands selling on Amazon marketplaces — particularly in the home goods and floor care accessories category — face growing risk from patent holders using e-commerce data to build infringement cases. Proactive FTO analysis before product launch on Amazon is increasingly essential.
Court jurisdiction retention elevates settlement enforceability
The stipulation expressly preserves Judge Hall’s jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. This is a commercially significant term: rather than a simple walk-away, both parties are bound under court supervision. For IP counsel drafting settlement agreements in Delaware, this mechanism provides a faster enforcement path than re-litigation, and its inclusion here suggests both parties negotiated carefully over post-settlement compliance.
Hills v Just — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on 10 December 2024, after 810 days of litigation. All claims and counterclaims were extinguished, with no right of appeal. The court retained jurisdiction over the parties’ undisclosed settlement agreement, and each party bore its own fees and costs.
Hills Point asserted US11141013B2, filed under application number US17/191883. The patent covers rug gripper and non-slip floor anchoring technology. The accused product was the Gorilla Commerce Gorilla Grip Rug Gripper, identified by four specific Amazon ASINs: B08BS3WG57, B084WZ7W9T, B0815BLNX1, and B08BS3CQT7.
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Hills Point from re-filing the same patent infringement claims against Just For Love for the same accused Gorilla Grip products. However, US11141013B2 remains valid and enforceable against third parties — only Just For Love and the specific accused products are protected from further suit by Hills Point under this stipulation.
Retention of jurisdiction allows either party to return to Judge Hall’s court to enforce settlement terms without filing a new lawsuit. This is a negotiated provision that typically signals a substantive commercial agreement — such as a license or royalty arrangement — underpins the dismissal. It provides a faster and less costly enforcement mechanism than initiating fresh litigation if one party defaults on its settlement obligations.
In patent cases, a prevailing party can sometimes seek attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in exceptional cases. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement here suggests neither party achieved a dominant litigation outcome, and no fee-shifting motion was pursued or granted. This is consistent with a negotiated compromise where both parties accepted terms without one side conceding liability or invalidity, though the precise commercial terms remain confidential.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.