Lion Credit Card v. Upgraving: Metal Credit Card Patent Dispute Ends in Voluntary Dismissal
Lion Credit Card, Inc. brought a patent infringement action against Upgraving, LLC and three individual defendants in the Central District of California, asserting US11562194B2 covering metal credit card customization products and services. The case closed just 74 days after filing via a voluntary dismissal, with the public record silent on whether the parties reached a resolution.
74-Day Metal Credit Card Patent Case Ends Without Merits Ruling
On 29 July 2024, Lion Credit Card, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cv-06398), asserting US11562194B2 against Upgraving, LLC and three individual defendants — Maria Isabel Calderon Suarez, Matan Siordia, and Rachel Zilbert. The asserted patent relates to metal credit card customization products and services, a niche but commercially active segment of the premium payment-card industry.
The case concluded on 11 October 2024, just 74 days after filing, when a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was entered. The basis of termination is recorded as voluntary dismissal; however, the public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, leaving the precise legal effect — and whether any private settlement accompanied it — unknown from the docket alone.
A resolution inside 74 days is notably fast for patent litigation in the Central District of California, where cases routinely run two or more years to trial. The speed is consistent with an early negotiated resolution, a licensing agreement, or a strategic withdrawal, but none of these can be confirmed from the public record. The absence of defendant law firm entries suggests the defendants may not have formally appeared before the matter was resolved.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 74 days
74 days — resolved well below the typical multi-year district court patent litigation timeline
Voluntarily dismissed: what the filing means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal: merits were never adjudicated
A Notice of Voluntary Dismissal ends a case without any court ruling on the underlying patent claims. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, this mechanism is available to plaintiffs typically before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. No finding of infringement, validity, or invalidity was made. The patent remains intact and enforceable as a matter of public record.
No merits ruling issuedWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal with prejudice bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims. A dismissal without prejudice preserves the right to sue again on the same patent and same alleged infringement. The docket entry here records only ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without specifying either form. Until further public filings clarify, practitioners should not assume either outcome — the legal effect for both parties remains ambiguous from the available record.
Prejudice terms unconfirmedDefendants exit without an invalidity or non-infringement finding
Upgraving, LLC and the individual defendants received no formal judicial determination of non-infringement or invalidity of US11562194B2. If the dismissal was without prejudice, exposure to re-filing persists. No defendant law firm appeared on record, which may suggest the matter was resolved before formal engagement of litigation counsel — though this cannot be confirmed from the docket alone.
No safe harbour establishedPatent remains live — customization sector exposure persists
US11562194B2 was not challenged, invalidated, or licensed on the public record. Competitors and adjacent players in the metal credit card customization space should treat the patent as an active enforcement risk. The rapid dismissal could signal a private licensing deal that resolves the dispute commercially, but operators in this product category should monitor Lion Credit Card’s enforcement activity and conduct FTO analysis against this patent.
Active IP risk for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Lion Credit Card, Inc. | Company | Patent holder in metal credit card customization — asserting US11562194B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Upgraving, LLC | Company | Upgraving, LLC and three individual defendants — providers of metal credit card customization products and servicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Maria Isabel Calderon Suarez | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Matan Siordia | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Rachel Zilbert | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John D. Tran | Attorney | Counsel for Lion Credit Card, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rosalind Thuy Ong | Attorney | Counsel for Lion Credit Card, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rhema Law Group PC | Law Firm | Representing Lion Credit Card, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The docket records a ‘Notice of Voluntary Dismissal’ as both the verdict cause and basis of termination. This procedural filing ends the action without the court ruling on infringement or validity of US11562194B2. Critically, the notice does not specify whether dismissal is with or without prejudice — a distinction with significant legal consequences for both the plaintiff’s ability to re-file and the defendants’ long-term exposure. Practitioners should review the underlying Rule 41 notice directly for any prejudice specification.
US11562194B2 — Metal Credit Card Customization Products & Services
US11562194B2 (application number US17/233338) covers metal credit card customization products and services — a technology area at the intersection of premium payment card manufacturing and personalization. The patent was asserted in its granted form, meaning it has passed USPTO examination and carries a presumption of validity. Metal credit card customization involves processes and systems for personalizing high-durability card substrates, which have grown significantly as financial institutions and fintech companies offer premium card products as a brand differentiator.
Strategically, this patent positions Lion Credit Card, Inc. as an IP rights holder in a niche but commercially expanding segment. As metal cards become a mainstream offering across challenger banks, travel rewards programmes, and corporate card products, the competitive relevance of manufacturing and customization IP is rising. Any entity operating in the design, production, fulfilment, or white-label customization of metal payment cards should assess their process architecture against the claims of this patent to understand potential exposure.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11562194B2?
If your business designs, produces, personalises, or distributes metal credit cards — or provides B2B customization services to card issuers — US11562194B2 represents a potential enforcement risk that warrants a formal freedom-to-operate review. The patent survived this litigation without any invalidity finding, and the plaintiff has demonstrated willingness to assert it in federal court, including against individual operators. R&D and product teams launching or scaling metal card programmes should prioritise this review.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and product teams to map the claims of US11562194B2 against your specific product architecture and manufacturing workflow. Eureka can surface relevant prior art, identify claim limitations, and flag design-around opportunities — helping you assess whether your metal card customization process falls within the patent’s scope before you face a demand letter or litigation filing.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11562194B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases in Metal Credit Card and Payment Card Technology
Explore related patent infringement actions in the metal credit card and payment card customization space litigated in California federal district courts.
What this case signals for the metal credit card customization IP landscape
A rapid voluntary dismissal without a merits ruling leaves the patent landscape in this niche sector unsettled and warrants close monitoring.
US11562194B2 remains unchallenged — treat it as an active enforcement risk
No invalidity or non-infringement ruling was issued. Any business designing, selling, or customizing metal credit cards should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US11562194B2 before scaling commercial operations. The plaintiff retains full enforcement rights, and the 74-day closure suggests a rapid private resolution rather than substantive adjudication.
Individual defendant naming signals an aggressive enforcement posture
Naming three individual defendants alongside the corporate entity is consistent with a strategy designed to maximize settlement pressure. IP teams in this product segment should advise principals that personal exposure is a real litigation tactic in this space, and that early legal counsel engagement is essential upon receipt of any demand letter.
Lion v Upgraving — key questions answered
Lion Credit Card, Inc. asserted US11562194B2 (application number US17/233338), which covers metal credit card customization products and services. The case was filed in the Central District of California on 29 July 2024 and closed via voluntary dismissal on 11 October 2024 without any merits ruling.
The voluntary dismissal produced no ruling on the validity or invalidity of US11562194B2. The patent retains its full presumption of validity as a granted US patent. Neither infringement nor non-infringement was adjudicated, leaving the claims entirely open for future enforcement actions by the patent holder.
The public docket records only ‘Voluntary dismissal’ as the basis of termination and does not specify whether it was with or without prejudice. This distinction is legally significant: a dismissal with prejudice bars re-filing, while one without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to assert the same claims again. Practitioners should consult the underlying Rule 41 notice for any specification.
The complaint named Maria Isabel Calderon Suarez, Matan Siordia, and Rachel Zilbert as individual defendants alongside Upgraving, LLC. Naming individuals alongside the corporate entity is a recognised litigation strategy to increase settlement pressure. The public record does not disclose the specific basis for individual liability alleged against each person.
Businesses designing, producing, or distributing metal credit card customization products and services should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US11562194B2. The rapid 74-day dismissal did not produce any invalidity finding, and Lion Credit Card has demonstrated willingness to file in federal court. Monitoring further enforcement filings and reviewing product processes against patent claims is advisable for any operator in this space.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.