Innovation X of Michigan & Cindy Ross v. Amazon.com — Dismissed With Prejudice in 139 Days
Innovation X of Michigan, Inc. and inventor Cindy Ross sued Amazon.com in Indiana’s Northern District, asserting two design patents covering the STICK IT hair and lint roller. The parties reached a private resolution and jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice after just 139 days — faster than the vast majority of design patent disputes against major platform defendants.
Swift resolution in a consumer product design patent dispute against Amazon
On 29 September 2023, Innovation X of Michigan, Inc. and individual inventor Cindy Ross filed a patent infringement action against Amazon.com, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Case No. 3:23-cv-00880). The complaint asserted two design patents — USD654699S and USD654698S, covering the ornamental appearance of the STICK IT hair and lint roller — against Amazon’s platform activities related to that product.
The case concluded on 15 February 2024, just 139 days after filing, when both parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (c). The dismissal is with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs are permanently barred from re-asserting the same design patent claims against Amazon arising from this dispute. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, with no fee-shifting order entered by the court.
The 139-day timeline is notably short for a design patent infringement action against a defendant of Amazon’s scale and legal resource. Early resolution of this kind typically suggests the parties reached a private commercial agreement — potentially including a licensing arrangement or product modification — though the public record is silent on specific settlement terms. The with-prejudice dismissal confirms finality, but the underlying commercial terms remain confidential.
Filing to dismissal in 139 days
139 days — resolved well inside the median timeline for design patent infringement actions at district court level
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice — what it means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A stipulated dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the signed agreement of all parties who have appeared. It is self-executing — no court order is needed. Here, both plaintiffs and Amazon jointly signed the stipulation, making the dismissal effective upon filing. This mechanism is commonly used when parties have privately resolved a dispute and wish to close the docket without disclosing settlement terms.
Mutual agreement, no court order requiredWith prejudice — permanent bar on refiling these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Innovation X and Cindy Ross cannot refile suit against Amazon asserting USD654699S or USD654698S on the same or substantially identical grounds. This is a significant concession by plaintiffs — suggesting they received something of value in return, most likely through a private agreement. For Amazon, the with-prejudice term provides clean finality and eliminates future litigation risk on these two design patents from these plaintiffs.
Permanent — plaintiffs cannot refileEach party bears its own costs — no fee award
The stipulation expressly provides that each party bears its own costs and attorneys’ fees. In design patent cases, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 is available in exceptional cases, but neither party sought it here. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a concession of weakness by either side, and avoids the reputational and financial risk of a § 285 motion.
No § 285 fee-shifting applied139-day resolution — what the speed suggests
At 139 days from filing to closure, this case resolved before any substantive motions practice or claim construction proceedings would typically commence. This timeline is consistent with early-stage private negotiation — possibly initiated shortly after service. For design patent plaintiffs asserting against large platform defendants, early resolution can indicate either a licensing payment, a product takedown, or a combination. The specifics here remain undisclosed.
Pre-motion resolution, likely commercial dealFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Innovation X. Of Michigan, Inc. | Company | Consumer product design IP holder — inventor and licensee of USD654699S and USD654698S (STICK IT roller)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | Amazon.com, Inc. — global e-commerce and marketplace platform operatorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew J. Chabot | Attorney | Counsel for Innovation X. Of Michigan, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael D. Marston | Attorney | Counsel for Innovation X. Of Michigan, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chris Carraway PHV | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John D. Ladue | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick J. O’rear | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul Edgar Harold | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Indiana Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The stipulation’s language — ‘resolves all issues between them as it relates to the matters asserted in this lawsuit’ — is deliberately broad, encompassing all claims in the complaint. The with-prejudice qualifier converts the dismissal into a final judgment on the merits as a matter of law, providing Amazon with preclusion protection. The phrase ‘each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees’ confirms no fee award was sought or granted, which is typical of negotiated resolutions and avoids any implied finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
USD654699S & USD654698S — STICK IT Hair and Lint Roller Ornamental Design
USD654699S and USD654698S are United States design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of the STICK IT hair and lint roller, filed under application numbers US29/394537 and US29/394536 respectively. Design patents in the USD series protect non-functional, aesthetic elements of a product — in this case the visual design of a consumer hair and lint removal tool. The paired application numbers suggest the two patents were filed in close succession, likely as variations on a single product design, a common strategy for capturing related visual embodiments within one product family.
In the consumer personal care and household products segment, design patents covering distinctive product shapes and appearances are increasingly used as enforcement tools against e-commerce platform sellers and marketplace listings. The STICK IT roller’s design IP represents a commercially meaningful asset for a small IP holder: design patents are relatively fast to obtain, have a 15-year term from grant, and can be asserted with lower claim construction complexity than utility patents. Competitors and private label sellers offering visually similar lint or hair roller products should treat these patents as active risk markers, particularly given the demonstrated willingness to enforce.
Should your product team run an FTO check against USD654699S and USD654698S?
If your company designs, sources, or sells hair rollers, lint rollers, or similar adhesive-roll personal care tools — particularly through Amazon or other e-commerce marketplaces — these two design patents warrant a formal freedom-to-operate review. Design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: if an ordinary consumer would mistake your product’s appearance for the patented design, infringement may exist regardless of functional differences. Private label manufacturers and marketplace sellers are especially exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map the visual claim scope of USD654699S and USD654698S against current product designs, identify design-around opportunities, and monitor for continuation or related design filings by the same applicants. Setting up claim alerts on the US29/394537 and US29/394536 application families ensures your team is notified if new related design protection is pursued — a critical step for any product roadmap involving adhesive roller consumer goods.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0654699S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases against e-commerce platforms
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement against e-commerce platforms
Two design patents, one individual inventor, and a 139-day resolution against Amazon — this case offers tactical signals for IP owners in the consumer products space.
Design patents can generate leverage against major platform defendants
Despite Amazon’s substantial legal resources, this case resolved in under five months — suggesting design patent assertions by smaller IP holders can achieve early commercial resolution. The with-prejudice dismissal and mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with a negotiated outcome, signalling that well-scoped design patent claims covering distinctive consumer product aesthetics carry real licensing leverage even against Tier 1 defendants.
Individual inventors and small entities can enforce design IP directly
The plaintiff structure here — a Michigan company and an individual co-inventor — demonstrates that design patent enforcement is not limited to large corporate portfolios. With focused claims and regional counsel, small IP holders can initiate and resolve proceedings against platform defendants. The Northern District of Indiana represents a viable venue for such actions, though its patent docket is less established than dedicated patent districts.
Innovation v Amazon.com — key questions answered
The plaintiffs asserted two design patents: USD654699S (application US29/394537) and USD654698S (application US29/394536), both covering the ornamental appearance of the STICK IT hair and lint roller product.
The case was resolved by a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (c). The dismissal was entered on 15 February 2024, approximately 139 days after filing. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The underlying commercial terms, if any, are not disclosed in the public record.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Innovation X of Michigan and Cindy Ross are permanently barred from refiling the same design patent infringement claims — based on USD654699S and USD654698S — against Amazon.com arising from the matters asserted in this lawsuit. It forecloses any future litigation on those specific grounds against that defendant.
The 139-day resolution is consistent with early-stage negotiated settlement, likely before significant motions practice commenced. The public record does not disclose the terms of any agreement. Early resolution in design patent cases against large platform defendants frequently reflects a private commercial arrangement — such as a licensing payment or product takedown — though this cannot be confirmed from the available record.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Case No. 3:23-cv-00880). The Northern District of Indiana is a general jurisdiction federal district court; while not a specialist patent venue, it has jurisdiction over patent infringement actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1338.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.