Mega Creation v. Hey Beautiful Nail Supply: LED Nail Lamp Patent Dispute Closed in 123 Days
Mega Creation, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Hey Beautiful Nail Supply & Cosmetic, LLC in the Southern District of Texas, asserting two patents covering rechargeable LED nail lamps. The case was resolved in 123 days via the parties' own stipulation, with each side bearing its own costs.
LED nail lamp patents at the heart of a swift Texas infringement action
On 9 January 2023, Mega Creation, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Hey Beautiful Nail Supply & Cosmetic, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas before Judge Lee H. Rosenthal. The asserted patents — US9713371B1 and US10357094B1 — cover LED nail lamp technology, specifically a nail lamp powered by either a power cord or rechargeable battery pack and a rechargeable LED nail lamp incorporating a light diffuser.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Terminated.' The docket order (Docket Entry No. 20) states that, in accordance with the parties' stipulation, the plaintiff's claims against the defendant are dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and fees. The specific terms underlying the stipulation are not disclosed in the available record.
The 123-day resolution — from filing to closure on 12 May 2023 — is notably brief for a patent infringement action, suggesting the parties reached agreement early in the litigation lifecycle, likely before substantial discovery or claim-construction proceedings. What prompted the swift resolution and whether any commercial arrangement accompanied the stipulation is not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Terminated in 123 days
days from filing to closure — well under the typical district court patent case average of 2–3 years
US9713371B1 & US10357094B1 — Rechargeable LED Nail Lamp Technology
Any company designing, importing, distributing, or retailing rechargeable LED nail lamps — particularly those offering both cord-powered and battery-powered operation, or incorporating a light diffuser — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against Mega Creation's two asserted patents. The Southern District of Texas infringement action demonstrates that the patent holder is willing to litigate, and the with-prejudice dismissal does not limit further enforcement against different parties.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order dismisses the plaintiff's claims with prejudice on the basis of the parties' stipulation (Docket Entry No. 20), with each party to bear its own costs. A with-prejudice dismissal constitutes a final disposition of the asserted claims as between these parties — no further action on the same claims is available to the plaintiff in any court. The specific commercial or legal terms underlying the stipulation are not disclosed in the available record.
Case Terminated: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice entered by the court
The docket order records a dismissal with prejudice entered on the parties' joint stipulation. A dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits — the plaintiff cannot re-file the same claims against this defendant in any court. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Terminated,' and the specific terms driving the stipulation are not disclosed in the public record.
Stipulated — dismissal with prejudiceMega Creation's claims closed permanently against this defendant
Because the dismissal is with prejudice, Mega Creation cannot revive these specific claims against Hey Beautiful Nail Supply. The patents themselves remain in force and may be asserted against other parties. The cost-neutral outcome means no fee award was secured. Whether any separate commercial arrangement accompanied the stipulation is not disclosed in the available record.
Patents intact — claims against defendant closedHey Beautiful Nail Supply exits litigation with no cost award against it
The defendant avoids any finding of infringement and bears no adverse cost order. The dismissal with prejudice bars Mega Creation from re-asserting these claims, providing Hey Beautiful Nail Supply with finality on the asserted patents in this action. The specific terms of the parties' stipulation — if any exist beyond the procedural dismissal — are not disclosed in the public record.
No infringement finding — cost-neutral exitLED nail lamp IP remains active risk for the broader beauty tools market
US9713371B1 and US10357094B1 remain enforceable patents. The swift, cost-neutral resolution of this action does not diminish their enforceability against other market participants. Retailers and manufacturers of rechargeable LED nail lamps with battery/cord power modes or light diffusers should assess freedom-to-operate exposure against Mega Creation's portfolio.
Patents enforceable — sector risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Mega Creation, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hey Beautiful Nail Supply & Cosmetic, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas Najera | Attorney | Counsel for Mega Creation, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Tiewei Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Mega Creation, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tong Jin | Attorney | Counsel for Mega Creation, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni Wang & Massand, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Mega Creation, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Mega Creation, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Douglas H. Elliott | Attorney | Counsel for Hey Beautiful Nail Supply & Cosmetic, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Elliott Law PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Hey Beautiful Nail Supply & Cosmetic, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lee H Rosenthal | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the LED nail lamp and cosmetic curing device space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Mega Creation's assertions and the LED nail lamp technology landscape — relevant for product teams and IP strategists.
Mega Creation's LED nail lamp patent portfolio and filing activity
Mega Creation holds at least two granted U.S. patents in the LED nail lamp space — US9713371B1 and US10357094B1 — covering power architecture and optical diffusion. Mapping Mega Creation's full portfolio for continuation applications or related filings can reveal whether additional claim coverage is being pursued in adjacent nail lamp features, such as timer circuits, UV wavelength tuning, or sensor-based curing control.
Active enforcement portfolioFiling trends in rechargeable LED nail curing lamp innovation
The LED nail lamp segment has seen sustained patent filing activity around cordless operation, battery management, and light uniformity. Tracking filing trends in CPC subclasses related to UV/LED nail curing lamps reveals which technical areas — dual-power systems, diffuser optics, smart charging — are attracting the most innovation activity and potential IP crowding relevant to product development decisions.
High filing activity — UV/LED curingHey Beautiful Nail Supply's IP position in the cosmetic tools market
As a nail supply and cosmetics retailer, Hey Beautiful Nail Supply's patent posture in the LED lamp space is not established from the available record. Assessing whether the defendant holds defensive IP in nail tool technology — or relies entirely on third-party manufacturers — is relevant intelligence for competitors evaluating the broader nail supply retail landscape and supply chain IP risk.
Retailer IP exposureAdjacent innovation opportunities near Mega Creation's asserted claims
The two asserted patents address specific combinations: cord/battery dual-power and diffuser-enhanced LED output. White space likely exists in related features not covered by these patents — such as wireless charging integration, adaptive UV dosimetry, foldable lamp form factors, or IoT-connected curing monitoring — offering R&D teams design-around and innovation pathways within the LED nail lamp category.
Design-around white spaceSimilar LED nail lamp and beauty tools patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable LED cosmetic tool and nail lamp patent infringement actions filed in U.S. district courts, including related cases in the Southern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the LED nail lamp IP landscape
A 123-day resolution with no cost award points to early commercial pragmatism — but the underlying patents are still live enforcement tools.
Dual-patent assertion signals a deliberate enforcement posture by Mega Creation
Asserting two patents covering distinct features — power flexibility and light diffusion — in a single action is consistent with a portfolio enforcement strategy. Competitors in the LED nail lamp space should map their products against both US9713371B1 and US10357094B1 to assess cumulative exposure, not just a single claim set.
Swift closure without cost award leaves the sector with no invalidity or non-infringement precedent
Because the case ended via stipulation before any claim construction or substantive ruling, no public record of the patents' scope or validity was established. This keeps litigation risk elevated for other LED nail lamp manufacturers and retailers who cannot point to a favorable prior ruling as a shield.
Mega v Hey — key questions answered
Mega Creation asserted two U.S. patents: US9713371B1 (application US14/848256), covering a nail lamp operable via power cord or rechargeable battery pack, and US10357094B1 (application US15/659545), covering a rechargeable LED nail lamp with a light diffuser. Both patents relate to LED nail curing lamp technology.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Terminated.' The docket order (Docket Entry No. 20) states that the plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the parties' stipulation, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and fees. The specific terms of the stipulation are not disclosed in the available public record.
A dismissal with prejudice means Mega Creation cannot re-file the same claims against Hey Beautiful Nail Supply in any court. However, the underlying patents — US9713371B1 and US10357094B1 — remain in force and may be asserted against other parties. The patents' enforceability is not affected by the dismissal of this single action.
The 123-day duration, from filing on 9 January 2023 to closure on 12 May 2023, is notably brief for a patent infringement action. The case closed via the parties' own stipulation before any reported substantive rulings on claim construction or merits. What drove the swift resolution is not disclosed in the available public record.
Yes — manufacturers, importers, and retailers of rechargeable LED nail lamps with dual power modes (cord and battery) or integrated light diffusers should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against both patents. Mega Creation's willingness to file suit against a nail supply retailer signals active enforcement, and neither patent was invalidated or found unenforceable in this action.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.