After 481 days of litigation in the Nevada District Court, individual inventor Brian Horowitz voluntarily dismissed his design patent infringement case against Christone Distribution, Inc. without prejudice. Filed on October 13, 2022, and closed February 6, 2024, the case centered on U.S. Design Patent USD757637S (Application No. US29/519643), which covers the ornamental design of a folding wagon. The dismissal was executed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own costs and fees — leaving the door open for potential re-filing.

For IP practitioners and product designers operating in the crowded consumer outdoor and recreational goods space, this case serves as a pointed reminder of the strategic complexity behind design patent enforcement. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice is neither a win nor a loss — it signals unresolved legal tension that could resurface. Companies distributing folding wagons and similar consumer utility products should treat this case as a live FTO signal and assess their exposure to USD757637S before Horowitz or successors in interest re-initiate action.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

U.S. Design Patent USD757637S, filed under application number US29/519643, protects the specific ornamental appearance — not the functional mechanics — of a folding wagon. Design patents cover how a product looks, including its shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation, meaning any competing product that is substantially similar in overall visual impression to the protected design may constitute infringement. Folding wagons are widely sold through retail and e-commerce channels, making this design patent relevant to a broad range of distributors, importers, and retailers.

• • USD0757637S

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Counsel: Ryan Ellis Law Corporation (lead: Ryan Andrew Ellis)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on October 13, 2022, a venue with a competent federal docket for intellectual property matters. As a first-instance district court proceeding, this was the trial-level forum where initial fact-finding, claim construction, and liability determinations would have occurred had the case proceeded to judgment. The choice of Nevada as venue suggests either that Christone Distribution conducts business or is registered there, or that infringing sales were alleged to have occurred within the district.

The case ran for 481 days — approximately 16 months — before closing on February 6, 2024. This duration is notable: it extended well beyond typical early-stage motion practice timelines, yet the docket record reflects only 14 filed documents before dismissal, suggesting limited active litigation. The case concluded not through trial, summary judgment, or settlement agreement but through a unilateral voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order prior to the defendant serving an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The without-prejudice designation means Horowitz retains the right to re-file identical claims against Christone or other parties, making this a tactically open matter.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case was dismissed without prejudice on February 6, 2024, pursuant to Plaintiff Brian Horowitz’s voluntary notice of dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief was granted, and no finding of infringement or non-infringement was made by the court. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, and Horowitz expressly preserved the right to re-file by opting for dismissal without prejudice.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) reflects a specific procedural posture with distinct strategic implications worth examining:

• FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits dismissal as of right — without court approval — only when filed before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, suggesting Christone Distribution may not have formally appeared or answered during the 481-day period.
• A without-prejudice dismissal means no res judicata effect attaches, allowing Horowitz to re-file the same infringement claims against Christone or newly identified defendants at any time within the applicable statute of limitations.
• The mutual cost-bearing provision avoids a fee-shifting outcome, which under 35 U.S.C. § 285 can be awarded to the prevailing party in ‘exceptional’ patent cases — here, neither side is declared prevailing.
• The extended 481-day timeline before a no-answer dismissal may indicate the parties engaged in informal negotiations, licensing discussions, or that Christone was difficult to serve or locate, ultimately resolving the commercial dispute outside of formal court proceedings.

Legal Significance

1. 1. This dismissal without prejudice creates no binding precedent on the scope or validity of USD757637S, leaving the design patent’s enforceability fully intact and available for future assertion against Christone or other parties in the folding wagon market.
2. 2. The case underscores that design patent litigation against distributors — rather than manufacturers — is a viable but tactically complex enforcement strategy, as distributors may lack visibility into upstream supply chains and may be more amenable to quiet resolution.
3. 3. For companies operating in adjacent consumer product categories with visually similar goods, the absence of any claim construction ruling means the scope of USD757637S remains legally untested and unpredictable, preserving full uncertainty around what designs could trigger infringement exposure.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys:

• When enforcing design patents on behalf of individual inventors, carefully evaluate whether targeting distributors offers faster settlement leverage versus the risk of a prolonged docket with limited defendant participation, as seen here.
• A voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) preserves your client’s litigation options entirely — consider using it as a reset mechanism when pre-suit negotiations stall or when better-positioned defendants are identified upstream in the supply chain.
• Ensure that any informal resolution reached during the litigation period is memorialized in a written agreement before dismissal is filed, since the dismissal itself carries no enforcement mechanism for any informal terms discussed.
• Track the tolling implications of the 481-day litigation period when advising clients on re-filing timelines, particularly with respect to laches arguments and any applicable state or federal limitation periods for design patent damages.

For IP Professionals:

• Flag USD757637S as an active enforcement risk in your company’s FTO clearance protocols for any folding wagon, collapsible cart, or similar utility wagon product line, since the without-prejudice dismissal keeps the patent’s threat live.
• Establish a litigation monitoring alert for Brian Horowitz and USD757637S to detect any re-filing or new assertion activity against distributors or retailers in the outdoor and recreational consumer goods sector.

For R&D Teams:

• If your team is developing or sourcing folding wagons or structurally analogous collapsible utility carts, commission a design patent clearance search specifically comparing your product’s ornamental features against USD757637S using the ‘ordinary observer’ infringement standard.
• Consider documenting design-around decisions early in your product development cycle — even minor but intentional ornamental distinctions from the patented design can provide meaningful protection if infringement claims are re-filed.