Maxx Group v. Uriah Products & Forcome: Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Maxx Group, LLC filed suit in the Central District of California against Uriah Products, LLC and Forcome Distributing, Inc., asserting US10857846B1 covering the MaxxHaul Mount. After 388 days of litigation, all claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation, with each party bearing its own fees and costs.
MaxxHaul Mount patent dispute ends by mutual dismissal with prejudice
On July 29, 2024, Maxx Group, LLC filed a patent infringement action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:24-cv-01651) against Uriah Products, LLC and Forcome Distributing, Inc. The lawsuit centred on US10857846B1, a patent covering the MaxxHaul Mount (ASIN B08MQZX35V), a vehicle accessory mounting product. Maxx Group alleged that the defendants’ activities infringed its rights under that patent.
The case concluded on August 21, 2025, when the court granted a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed by Maxx Group and Uriah Products under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court ordered all claims and counterclaims dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own fees and costs. Dismissal with prejudice is a final resolution on the merits — Maxx Group cannot refile the same infringement claims against Uriah Products or Forcome arising from this dispute.
The 388-day duration suggests the parties litigated past initial pleadings before reaching a negotiated resolution. A joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — requiring both parties’ signatures — typically signals a negotiated agreement, which may include undisclosed licensing, business, or commercial terms not visible in the public record. The mutual fee-bearing arrangement is consistent with a balanced settlement, though the specific commercial terms, if any, remain unknown.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 388 days
388 days from filing to dismissal — consistent with pre-trial resolution timelines in the C.D. Cal.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): mutual, court-approved dismissal
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a signed stipulation from all parties who have appeared. Unlike a unilateral voluntary dismissal, both sides must agree. The court reviewed and granted the stipulation, entering an order that all claims and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice. This is a final adjudication — the action is permanently closed and cannot be refiled on the same claims.
Bilateral, final dismissalWith prejudice bars any refiling of the same claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits. Maxx Group is permanently barred from reasserting these specific infringement claims against Uriah Products and Forcome arising from the same conduct and patent. This differs from a dismissal without prejudice, which would preserve the right to refile. The ‘with prejudice’ designation here is unambiguous — the public record explicitly states it.
No refiling permittedMaxx Group permanently closes this enforcement action
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Maxx Group relinquishes its right to pursue these specific claims again. However, a joint stipulation at this stage typically suggests the plaintiff secured some form of commercial resolution — potentially a licence, a supply arrangement, or an agreement to cease — before agreeing to close the case on these terms. The specific terms, if any, are not disclosed in the public court record.
Claims permanently relinquishedUriah Products and Forcome achieve finality on these claims
The defendants benefit from a permanent bar on re-litigation of the same infringement allegations. With prejudice dismissal provides legal certainty: the MaxxHaul Mount patent (US10857846B1) cannot be used to sue them again on these same facts. Each party bears its own costs, suggesting neither party was positioned to obtain a fee award, consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than an outright win for either side.
Permanent protection from re-suitFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Maxx Group, LLC | Company | Vehicle accessory products company — holder of US10857846B1 (MaxxHaul Mount)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Uriah Products, LLC | Company | Uriah Products, LLC and Forcome Distributing, Inc. — accused distributors of infringing mounting productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Forcome Distributing, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John D. Tran | Attorney | Counsel for Maxx Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rosalind Thuy Ong | Attorney | Counsel for Maxx Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rhema Law Group PC | Law Firm | Representing Maxx Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyle T Deighan | Attorney | Counsel for Uriah Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven J Goon | Attorney | Counsel for Uriah Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Todd R. Tucker | Attorney | Counsel for Uriah Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP | Law Firm | Representing Uriah Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Rutan & Tucker LLP | Law Firm | Representing Uriah Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint stipulation verbatim, granting dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The ‘with prejudice’ designation is unambiguous and court-ordered — not merely a party filing. The mutual cost-bearing clause is notable: it removes any prevailing-party fee argument and is consistent with a negotiated resolution in which neither side obtained a clear litigation advantage before agreeing to exit.
US10857846B1 — MaxxHaul Mount vehicle accessory mounting system
US10857846B1 is a granted US utility patent (application no. US15/950586) covering the MaxxHaul Mount, a vehicle accessory mounting product sold under ASIN B08MQZX35V. The patent is assigned to Maxx Group, LLC and falls within the vehicle accessories and hitch-mount carrier technology domain. As a B1 grant designation, it issued without pre-grant publication, suggesting a relatively streamlined prosecution history.
Within the vehicle accessories sector, hitch-mount and carrier system patents are commercially significant because the aftermarket is highly fragmented and price-competitive. A granted patent on a specific mount configuration provides Maxx Group with enforceable exclusivity against competitors offering functionally equivalent designs. This case demonstrates Maxx Group’s willingness to enforce — and the patent’s relevance to distribution channel enforcement given the naming of a distributor as co-defendant.
Should you run an FTO against US10857846B1?
Any company designing, importing, distributing, or retailing vehicle hitch-mount accessory carriers or similar mounting systems should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US10857846B1. The patent has been actively asserted in federal court, and the dismissal with prejudice does not limit Maxx Group’s ability to target other market participants. Distributors carrying competing MaxxHaul-adjacent products are particularly exposed given the multi-defendant enforcement pattern in this case.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US10857846B1 against your product specifications, flag design-around opportunities, and identify the closest prior art that informed the patent’s prosecution. The tool surfaces related family members, continuation risk, and competitive patents in the hitch-mount and vehicle carrier space — giving your R&D and legal teams a defensible clearance baseline before market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10857846B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: vehicle accessory and hitch-mount disputes in C.D. Cal.
Cases involving vehicle accessory mounting product patents litigated in the Central District of California, including infringement actions resolved by stipulated dismissal.
What this case signals for the vehicle accessories IP landscape
Patent enforcement in vehicle accessory mounting products is active — this case illustrates how quickly disputes can resolve when both sides have commercial incentives.
Joint stipulations with prejudice often signal undisclosed commercial terms
When both parties agree to dismiss with prejudice and share their own costs, it typically reflects a negotiated outcome — potentially a licence, design change, or market allocation. Competitors in the vehicle accessory mounting space should monitor whether Uriah Products or Forcome alter their product offerings post-dismissal, which may reveal the settlement contours.
US10857846B1 remains an active enforcement tool for Maxx Group
The dismissal resolves claims only against Uriah Products and Forcome. The patent itself is unaffected and its validity was never adjudicated. Maxx Group retains full rights to assert US10857846B1 against other parties in the vehicle mounting accessories market. Any competitor selling similar hitch-mount or accessory mounting products should conduct FTO analysis.
Maxx v Uriah — key questions answered
Dismissed with prejudice means all infringement claims and counterclaims in Case No. 8:24-cv-01651 are permanently closed. Maxx Group cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against Uriah Products or Forcome Distributing based on US10857846B1 and the conduct alleged in this case. The dismissal was entered by court order following a joint stipulation signed by both parties under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
US10857846B1 is a granted US utility patent held by Maxx Group, LLC, covering the MaxxHaul Mount — a vehicle hitch-mounted accessory carrier product (ASIN B08MQZX35V). The application number is US15/950586. The patent was asserted in this infringement action against Uriah Products, LLC and Forcome Distributing, Inc. in the Central District of California.
Naming both a product supplier (Uriah Products) and a distributor (Forcome Distributing) is a common patent enforcement strategy designed to create pressure across the full supply chain. Distributors can be liable for infringement even without manufacturing the accused product. The court’s dismissal order references the stipulation between Maxx Group and Uriah Products specifically, suggesting Forcome’s resolution may have been addressed as part of the same agreement.
There was no merits adjudication. The case was resolved by a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), meaning both parties agreed to end the litigation without a court ruling on infringement or validity. Each party bears its own fees and costs. Whether Maxx Group secured any commercial terms — such as a licence or agreement to cease — is not disclosed in the public record.
No. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only the claims between these specific parties. The validity of US10857846B1 was never adjudicated in this case, and the patent remains in force. Maxx Group retains full rights to assert the patent against third parties in the vehicle accessory mounting market. Competitors should not treat this dismissal as a signal that the patent is weak or unenforceable.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.