LithiumHub v. Bass Pro & Cabela’s: Dismissed With Prejudice After 318 Days
LithiumHub, LLC and LithiumHub Technologies, LLC brought a patent infringement action against Bass Pro Outdoor World and Cabela’s in the Western District of Texas, asserting two battery technology patents against Cabela’s- and Tracker-branded products. The case ended by voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — before the defendants filed any answer — barring LithiumHub from re-filing the same claims.
Battery IP dispute against outdoor retail giants ends before defendants respond
On September 13, 2024, LithiumHub, LLC and LithiumHub Technologies, LLC filed suit in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:24-cv-00220) against Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC and its affiliated brand Cabela’s, LLC. The plaintiffs asserted two patents — US9954207B2 and US9412994B2 — covering lithium battery technology, targeting Cabela’s- and Tracker-branded products sold through the defendants’ retail channels.
The case closed on July 28, 2025, when LithiumHub filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because the defendants had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, no court order was required — the notice was self-effectuating. The dismissal with prejudice is a critical distinction: unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, LithiumHub is permanently barred from re-asserting these same patent claims against the same defendants.
The case resolved within approximately ten months — before merits briefing began — which is consistent with either a negotiated resolution reached outside the public record or a strategic decision by the plaintiffs to withdraw. The with-prejudice designation is notable: it is more final than a standard voluntary dismissal, suggesting the parties may have reached a private arrangement, though the public record is silent on any such terms. No attorney fees were awarded to either side.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 318 days
318 days from filing to closure — resolved before any defendant answer was served
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary withdrawal means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating dismissal, no court order needed
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may unilaterally dismiss an action by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. The court confirmed defendants had not yet done so, making LithiumHub’s notice self-effectuating. The ‘with prejudice’ designation was plaintiff’s own choice — the rule permits either form — and transforms a procedural exit into a permanent, merits-final judgment against re-filing.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — pre-answerWith-prejudice dismissal permanently closes the door on these claims
By electing dismissal with prejudice, LithiumHub has waived any future right to sue Bass Pro or Cabela’s on US9954207B2 and US9412994B2 for the same alleged infringement. This is an unusual self-imposed finality at such an early stage. It may suggest a confidential settlement — potentially including a licensing agreement, a lump-sum payment, or product design changes — but the public record does not confirm any such terms.
Claims permanently extinguishedBass Pro and Cabela’s exit without admitting infringement or paying public costs
The defendants never served an answer, meaning no public denial, invalidity argument, or counterclaim appears on the docket. Each party bearing its own costs signals no fee-shifting ruling under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The with-prejudice dismissal gives Bass Pro and Cabela’s a clean, permanent shield against re-litigation of these specific claims — a commercially significant outcome regardless of whether any private arrangement was reached.
No admission; no cost awardRetail battery products remain commercially active; patent enforceability unresolved
Because the case ended without any merits adjudication, neither patent was tested for validity or infringement scope. US9954207B2 and US9412994B2 remain issued and presumptively valid. Other retailers or distributors of lithium battery products in the outdoor and marine segments should note that these patents were asserted aggressively and could be deployed again against different defendants. The patents’ claims were never narrowed or invalidated through this proceeding.
Patents still valid and enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | LITHIUMHUB, LLC | Company | Lithium battery technology licensing entity — holder of US9954207B2 and US9412994B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | LithiumHub Technologies, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC | Company | Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC and affiliated brand Cabela’s, LLC — major outdoor sporting goods retailersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Cabela’s, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Helen Yu Zhang | Attorney | Counsel for LITHIUMHUB, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Karl Anthony Rupp | Attorney | Counsel for LITHIUMHUB, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark H. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for LITHIUMHUB, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicole S. Cunningham | Attorney | Counsel for LITHIUMHUB, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott A. Cole | Attorney | Counsel for LITHIUMHUB, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven A. Moore | Attorney | Counsel for LITHIUMHUB, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tim F. Williams | Attorney | Counsel for LITHIUMHUB, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dority & Manning PA | Law Firm | Representing LITHIUMHUB, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sorey & Hoover LLP | Law Firm | Representing LITHIUMHUB, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter J. Chassman | Attorney | Counsel for Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William D. Cramer | Attorney | Counsel for Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Clark Hill Strasburger | Law Firm | Representing Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Reed Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms the dismissal was self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no merits ruling, claim construction, or validity finding was made. The with-prejudice designation is plaintiff-elected and carries res judicata effect: LithiumHub cannot reassert these specific claims against Bass Pro or Cabela’s. The absence of any fee award under § 285 means neither party was found to have litigated in bad faith. The operative phrase ‘each party shall bear its own costs’ is consistent with either a clean walk-away or a privately settled resolution.
US9954207B2 & US9412994B2 — Lithium battery technology patents
US9954207B2 (application no. US14/657101) and US9412994B2 (application no. US13/989273) are both issued US utility patents in the lithium battery technology domain. The application numbers suggest filings in the mid-2010s — a period of intense commercial and IP activity in lithium-ion battery development driven by growth in consumer electronics, electric vehicles, and outdoor power equipment. Both patents are held by the LithiumHub entities and were asserted against retail products sold under the Cabela’s and Tracker brands.
The assertion of these patents against a major outdoor and marine retail group signals that LithiumHub views its battery IP as commercially relevant to the sporting goods and power sports distribution channel. Because neither patent was subjected to claim construction or validity challenge in this proceeding, their full scope remains untested in adversarial litigation. Companies distributing or manufacturing lithium battery products for outdoor, marine, or recreational use should treat both patents as active enforcement risks and evaluate their claims carefully.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9954207B2 and US9412994B2?
If your company manufactures, imports, or distributes lithium battery products — particularly for outdoor, marine, recreational, or power sports applications — these two patents represent a credible enforcement risk. LithiumHub has already demonstrated willingness to file suit in the Western District of Texas against major retailers. A freedom-to-operate analysis is particularly urgent for companies launching new lithium battery SKUs, entering retail distribution agreements, or sourcing battery packs from third-party OEMs who have not indemnified against these patents.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US9954207B2 and US9412994B2 against your product specifications, identify relevant prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and flag design-around opportunities — all before you commit to a product launch or retail partnership. Run a targeted FTO now to quantify your exposure and prioritise any necessary engineering changes.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9954207B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar lithium battery patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving lithium battery patent assertions in U.S. district courts — particularly WDTX — with comparable Rule 41 early dismissals or licensing-entity plaintiff structures.
What this case signals for the lithium battery and outdoor retail IP landscape
A with-prejudice voluntary dismissal before any answer is filed is structurally unusual — here is what practitioners should take away.
With-prejudice at Rule 41 stage typically signals a negotiated exit
Plaintiffs who dismiss with prejudice this early are rarely walking away empty-handed. The stronger inference is a private resolution — licensing, design-around agreement, or lump-sum payment. IP teams monitoring this portfolio should factor in the possibility that Bass Pro/Cabela’s have secured a license, which may affect royalty benchmarking in any future negotiation involving these patents.
US9954207B2 and US9412994B2 remain live threats to other market participants
No claim was cancelled, no invalidity finding was made, and no claim construction order was entered. Any company selling lithium battery products — particularly in the outdoor, marine, or sporting goods retail channel — should treat both patents as actively enforceable. An FTO analysis against these patents is warranted before product launch or retail distribution expansion.
LITHIUMHUB v Bass — key questions answered
LithiumHub elected to dismiss its patent infringement claims against Bass Pro and Cabela’s with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This means the dismissal is final and merits-preclusive — LithiumHub cannot re-file the same claims against the same defendants on US9954207B2 or US9412994B2. No court order was required because defendants had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment.
No. The case ended before any merits ruling. No claim construction order, invalidity finding, or infringement determination was made. Both patents remain issued and presumptively valid. The dismissal does not affect the patents’ enforceability against any party other than Bass Pro Outdoor World and Cabela’s.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. The docket reflects only a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. However, the with-prejudice designation — unusual at the pre-answer stage — is consistent with a confidential resolution, which may have included licensing terms, a lump-sum payment, or product modifications. PatSnap cannot confirm any such arrangement from available public data.
Court records identify Cabela’s and Tracker branded products as the accused products in this infringement action. The specific product models or SKUs are not detailed in the available public docket. The patents asserted — US9954207B2 and US9412994B2 — cover lithium battery technology, suggesting the accused products involved lithium battery cells, packs, or related power systems sold through the defendants’ retail channels.
The Western District of Texas has been a preferred venue for patent plaintiffs, particularly licensing entities, due to its historically efficient dockets and plaintiff-friendly procedural reputation. Filing there, combined with a pre-answer with-prejudice dismissal, is a pattern sometimes associated with assertion campaigns designed to generate early settlements. Other companies in the lithium battery and outdoor retail sector should monitor LithiumHub’s WDTX filing activity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.