Knix Wear v. Diva International: Period Underwear Patent Dispute Ends in Voluntary Dismissal
Knix Wear Inc. filed a three-patent infringement action against Diva International Inc. in Oregon, targeting the DIVA Reusable Period Underwear product. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 95 days after filing, before the defendant had filed any answer or dispositive motion.
Knix Wear’s rapid exit leaves Diva International dispute unresolved
On 29 August 2024, Knix Wear Inc. — a Canadian-founded intimate apparel brand — filed a patent infringement action against Diva International Inc. in the U.S. District Court for Oregon before Judge Amy M. Baggio. Knix asserted three U.S. patents (US10441479B2, US11737931B2, and US10441480B2) covering absorbent period underwear technology, alleging that Diva International’s DIVA Reusable Period Underwear product infringed those rights.
The action lasted just 95 days. On 2 December 2024, Knix Wear filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Diva International had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Knix was entitled to dismiss as of right — no court order was required and no merits adjudication occurred. The case closed with no findings on infringement, validity, or damages.
A dismissal without prejudice within three months of filing, before the defendant even responded, is commercially significant: it leaves the patent claims fully intact and the underlying dispute legally unresolved. The public record does not reveal whether the parties reached a private settlement, whether a licensing arrangement was negotiated, or whether Knix plans to refile. Competitors and product teams operating in the reusable period underwear space should treat these three patents as live enforcement risk until further notice.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 95 days
95 days — resolved before defendant responded, well under median district court pendency
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court order needed
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Diva International had filed neither, Knix’s notice was self-executing. The case closed immediately with no judicial ruling on the merits — infringement, validity, and damages remain unadjudicated.
No merits rulingWithout prejudice: the public record does not reveal final terms
A dismissal without prejudice means Knix Wear retains the right to refile the same claims in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. A dismissal with prejudice would have permanently barred refiling. The notice here expressly states ‘without prejudice.’ Whether the parties reached a private settlement, licensing deal, or simply paused enforcement is not disclosed in the public record — both outcomes are consistent with this procedural posture.
Refiling remains possibleDiva International avoids a merits ruling — but patent risk persists
Diva International exits without any adverse finding on infringement or invalidity. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, however, the DIVA Reusable Period Underwear product remains exposed to future enforcement of the same three Knix patents. The absence of an answer or invalidity challenge on the record means Diva has not publicly contested the patents’ scope or validity — that strategic question remains open.
Risk not extinguishedThree live patents over period underwear: sector-wide FTO implications
Knix’s patent portfolio — three granted U.S. patents covering absorbent period underwear constructions — remains fully enforceable. The voluntary exit without prejudice typically signals either ongoing negotiations or a deliberate tactical repositioning. Any brand developing or commercialising reusable period underwear in the U.S. market should assess freedom-to-operate against these patents before product launch or expansion.
Active enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Knix Wear Inc. | Company | Absorbent intimate apparel brand — holder of US10441479B2, US11737931B2, US10441480B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Diva International Inc. | Company | Diva International Inc. — maker of the DIVA Reusable Period Underwear productSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shawn J. Kolitch. | Attorney | Counsel for Knix Wear Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kolitch Romano Dascenzo Gates LLC | Law Firm | Representing Knix Wear Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amy M. Baggio | Judge | Oregon District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The voluntary dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which requires only that the defendant has not yet served an answer or summary judgment motion — both conditions confirmed on the face of the notice. The phrasing ‘without prejudice’ is controlling: it preserves Knix Wear’s right to reassert all three patents against Diva International or other defendants in a future action. No claim construction, infringement finding, or validity ruling was made, meaning the legal and commercial dispute between these parties remains substantively open.
US10441479B2, US11737931B2 & US10441480B2 — absorbent period underwear technology
The three asserted patents — US10441479B2 (App. No. 14/888,435), US11737931B2 (App. No. 16/567,212), and US10441480B2 (App. No. 15/833,248) — form a coordinated portfolio covering absorbent underwear technology directed at reusable period and incontinence garments. The staggered application numbers across three separate filings suggest deliberate layering of claims across different structural and functional aspects of absorbent underwear construction, potentially including gusset design, fluid management layers, and leak-barrier architecture.
This portfolio represents a meaningful competitive moat in the fast-growing reusable period underwear category, where brands such as Thinx, Modibodi, and Diva International compete directly. A three-patent cluster covering different aspects of the same product class raises the bar for design-arounds: circumventing one patent’s claims may still leave a product exposed to the other two. For R&D teams developing absorbent underwear products for the U.S. market, independent claim mapping against all three patents is the minimum prudent step before commercialisation.
Should your team run an FTO against US10441479B2, US11737931B2, and US10441480B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing reusable absorbent underwear — including period underwear and incontinence garments — in the U.S. market should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against Knix Wear’s three-patent cluster. The voluntary dismissal without prejudice in this case means enforcement risk has not been extinguished; Knix retains full rights to reassert these patents against the same or different defendants at any time.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to map product features against the independent claims of US10441479B2, US11737931B2, and US10441480B2 simultaneously, identifying freedom-to-operate gaps and design-around opportunities. Eureka’s claim-chart automation and prosecution history analysis can accelerate the initial FTO screening from weeks to hours, giving product teams defensible documentation before market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10441479B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar absorbent apparel patent cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving absorbent garment technology filed in U.S. district courts, including Oregon District Court.
What this case signals for the reusable period underwear IP landscape
A three-patent assertion resolved in 95 days without a merits ruling leaves enforcement risk live across the sector.
Without-prejudice exits preserve enforcement leverage for patent holders
Knix’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) exit costs nothing in terms of patent rights. All three asserted patents remain valid, enforceable, and immediately available for refiling. Competitors should not interpret a voluntary dismissal as a signal that Knix has abandoned its IP position — the opposite inference is equally supported.
Pre-answer dismissals reveal nothing about claim strength
Because Diva International never filed an answer, no invalidity contentions, claim construction positions, or non-infringement arguments entered the record. Market participants cannot rely on this case as any indicator of whether the three Knix patents are strong or weak — a separate FTO analysis is the only defensible approach.
Knix v Diva — key questions answered
Knix Wear filed a patent infringement action against Diva International in the Oregon District Court on 29 August 2024, asserting three U.S. patents against the DIVA Reusable Period Underwear. Knix voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on 2 December 2024 — 95 days after filing — before Diva International had filed an answer or any dispositive motion.
Knix Wear asserted three granted U.S. patents: US10441479B2 (App. No. 14/888,435), US11737931B2 (App. No. 16/567,212), and US10441480B2 (App. No. 15/833,248). All three relate to absorbent underwear technology directed at reusable period and incontinence garments. The accused product was the DIVA Reusable Period Underwear made by Diva International Inc.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) leaves all three Knix patents fully enforceable. Knix retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against Diva International or any other party at a future date, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. No finding was made on infringement, patent validity, or damages — the legal dispute is unresolved, not concluded.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action as of right — without needing court approval — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal notice in this case expressly confirms that Diva International had served neither, making the voluntary dismissal self-executing upon filing of the notice.
The public record is silent on this point. A without-prejudice dismissal filed before the defendant responds is consistent with several scenarios: a private settlement or licensing agreement, an ongoing negotiation, or a tactical decision to refile in a different venue or on revised claims. No settlement agreement or licensing terms have been publicly disclosed. Monitoring subsequent Knix filings and business announcements is the most reliable way to track resolution.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.