Infinity X1 v. Alliance Sports Group: Flashlight Patent Dismissed Without Prejudice
Infinity X1, LLC filed suit against Alliance Sports Group, L.P. in the Central District of California alleging infringement of US11149924B2, a patent covering the XL Flashlight. The dispute ended in a voluntary dismissal without prejudice just 60 days after filing, leaving the door open for future litigation.
A Fast Exit: Flashlight IP Dispute Ends Before Merits Reached
On July 29, 2024, Infinity X1, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Alliance Sports Group, L.P. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cv-06364). The case centred on US11149924B2, a patent directed at portable flashlight technology associated with the XL Flashlight product line. Infinity X1 was represented by Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP, while Alliance Sports Group retained Venable LLP.
The case closed on September 27, 2024 — just 60 days after filing — via a voluntary dismissal without prejudice filed by Infinity X1 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). The dismissal stipulated that each party would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, no final judgment on the merits was entered, meaning Infinity X1 retains the legal right to reassert the same claims in a future action.
The 60-day resolution is notably rapid and strongly suggests early settlement negotiations, licensing discussions, or a strategic pause rather than a litigated resolution. The public record does not disclose whether any commercial agreement was reached between the parties. The without-prejudice dismissal preserves Infinity X1’s enforcement position, leaving Alliance Sports Group in a state of unresolved exposure to the asserted patent claims.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 60 days
60 days — resolved well before the typical district court patent trial average of 2–3 years
Dismissed without prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal: the plaintiff holds the exit door
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This mechanism gives Infinity X1 unilateral control over the exit. Critically, no merits ruling was issued — the court never assessed validity or infringement of US11149924B2. The dismissal resets the procedural clock without extinguishing the underlying IP claim.
No merits adjudicatedWithout prejudice: the case can return
A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff is not barred from refiling the same claims in future litigation. This is legally distinct from a dismissal with prejudice, which would permanently extinguish the asserted claims. The public record in this case does not specify whether a settlement or licensing agreement accompanied the dismissal — the terms, if any, remain confidential. Parties and counsel monitoring this dispute should not assume it is permanently resolved.
Refiling right preservedInfinity X1 preserves enforcement leverage on US11149924B2
By dismissing without prejudice, Infinity X1 retains the ability to refile against Alliance Sports Group or pursue other alleged infringers. The cost-neutral terms — each party bearing its own fees — suggest neither side claimed a clear litigation advantage at this stage. This outcome is consistent with a plaintiff that secured its near-term objective (e.g., a licensing conversation) without needing a court ruling to do so.
Patent rights intactAlliance Sports Group faces unresolved patent exposure
For Alliance Sports Group, the without-prejudice dismissal provides immediate relief from active litigation but not long-term certainty. The asserted patent, US11149924B2, remains valid and enforceable. Without a declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity, Alliance faces the possibility of renewed claims. Companies in adjacent consumer lighting and sporting goods product categories should also note that this patent remains available for enforcement.
Exposure not extinguishedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Infinity X1, LLC | Company | Portable lighting technology company — holder of US11149924B2 (XL Flashlight)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Alliance Sports Group, L.P. | Company | Alliance Sports Group, L.P. — sporting goods and consumer products distributorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory S. Cordrey | Attorney | Counsel for Infinity X1, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rod S. Berman | Attorney | Counsel for Infinity X1, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Infinity X1, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel S. Silverman | Attorney | Counsel for Alliance Sports Group, L.P.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Venable LLP | Law Firm | Representing Alliance Sports Group, L.P.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), confirming this was a plaintiff-initiated exit requiring no judicial approval and producing no court-authored ruling on the merits. The explicit ‘WITHOUT PREJUDICE’ language and the bilateral cost-bearing term are the two operative provisions: the first preserves Infinity X1’s right to refile; the second ensures no fee-shifting consequence for either party. The absence of any agreed injunction or licensing recital in the public filing leaves the commercial terms, if any exist, entirely confidential.
US11149924B2 — XL Flashlight portable lighting device technology
US11149924B2 was filed under application number US16/569958 and granted to Infinity X1, LLC, covering technology embodied in the XL Flashlight product. The patent sits within the portable lighting and consumer electronics domain. As an issued utility patent, it carries a presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282, meaning any challenger would need to establish invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. The patent’s claim scope — and how broadly it reaches competing flashlight designs — is the central commercial question left unresolved by this dismissal.
For competitors in the consumer flashlight, tactical lighting, and sporting goods accessory markets, US11149924B2 represents an active enforcement asset. The fact that Infinity X1 was prepared to file in federal court and engage outside counsel from Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell signals a willingness to enforce. Companies distributing portable lighting products through sporting goods channels — the apparent market overlap with Alliance Sports Group — should conduct claim-by-claim FTO reviews before launching or continuing product lines in this space.
Should you run an FTO against US11149924B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing portable flashlights or handheld lighting products — particularly those sold through sporting goods, outdoor, or consumer electronics channels — should assess exposure to US11149924B2. The patent has demonstrated litigation intent and, following this without-prejudice dismissal, remains fully enforceable. Product and procurement teams considering new SKUs in the flashlight category should commission an FTO before launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US11149924B2 against your product specifications in minutes, flagging overlapping claim elements and identifying prior art that could support an invalidity argument. Eureka also monitors continuation and divisional filings from the same family, alerting your team if Infinity X1 files related patents that extend the coverage footprint.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11149924B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar portable lighting patent cases in C.D. California
Explore related patent infringement actions involving portable lighting, flashlight technology, and consumer electronics enforced in the Central District of California.
What this case signals for the consumer lighting IP landscape
A 60-day dismissal without prejudice in a flashlight patent case often signals more activity beneath the surface than the docket reveals.
Short timelines often mask private agreements — monitor for refiling
When patent cases close under 90 days without a merits ruling, it typically signals a licensing conversation or cease-and-desist compliance rather than litigation abandon. Infinity X1’s without-prejudice exit preserves the threat. Competitors in portable lighting and consumer electronics should track US11149924B2 for new enforcement actions.
Cost-neutral dismissals shift leverage back to the patent holder
Each-party-bears-own-costs language removes the financial disincentive for Infinity X1 to refile. Unlike a fee-shifting outcome, this structure leaves Infinity X1 with no penalty for its enforcement attempt — and full freedom to reassert. In-house teams at consumer goods distributors should treat such dismissals as a pause, not a resolution.
Infinity v Alliance — key questions answered
A without-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) means no merits ruling was entered and Infinity X1 retains the right to refile the same claims against Alliance Sports Group in the future. The patent US11149924B2 remains valid and enforceable. Alliance Sports Group received no declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity.
The asserted patent is US11149924B2, filed under application number US16/569958. It covers technology relating to the XL Flashlight product. The patent is held by plaintiff Infinity X1, LLC and was asserted against Alliance Sports Group, L.P.’s allegedly infringing products.
The case closed in 60 days, well before any substantive court proceedings. This timeline is consistent with early settlement, a licensing agreement, or a demand that was voluntarily complied with. The public record does not disclose whether a private agreement was reached. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal suggests the resolution, if any, was not intended to be final.
Yes. Because the dismissal was entered without prejudice, Infinity X1 is not barred from reasserting infringement claims based on US11149924B2 against Alliance Sports Group. There is no res judicata bar. However, if Infinity X1 were to file and then dismiss a second time without prejudice in federal court, a subsequent dismissal could operate as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(a)(1)(B).
Infinity X1, LLC was represented by attorneys Gregory S. Cordrey and Rod S. Berman of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP. Alliance Sports Group, L.P. was represented by Daniel S. Silverman of Venable LLP. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.