Milkmen Design v. DGL Group & Five Below: Condiment Holder Patents Settled
Milkmen Design, LLC brought a four-patent infringement action against DGL Group, Five Below, and 1616 Holdings over rotatable condiment holder technology and related designs. Filed in Ohio’s Northern District, the case resolved by settlement after 474 days — with each party bearing its own legal costs.
Four-Patent Condiment Holder Dispute Ends in Settlement After 15 Months
Milkmen Design, LLC filed suit on January 25, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, asserting infringement of four patents: utility patent US11518287B2, utility patent US10967776B2, and design patents USD0899196S and USD0960654S — collectively covering rotatable and stationary condiment holder products. The defendants named were DGL Group, Ltd., 1616 Holdings, Inc., and Five Below, Inc., the last of which is a major discount retail chain, suggesting the accused products were sold at consumer retail scale.
The case closed on May 13, 2024, when the court entered a dismissal order following settlement by agreement of all parties. The order specifies that each party shall pay its own costs, and that the court retains jurisdiction under Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. to resolve any disputes arising from memorialisation of the settlement agreement. Any subsequent order with different terms would supersede the dismissal — a standard protective mechanism preserving enforcement rights.
The 474-day duration suggests the parties engaged in substantive litigation activity — likely including claim construction exchanges or early discovery — before reaching resolution. The mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with a negotiated compromise rather than a clear win for either side. The public record does not disclose royalty terms, licensing arrangements, or any product design changes agreed as part of the settlement, leaving the commercial outcome opaque.
Filing to Case Settled in 474 days
474 days to settlement — slightly above the median for single-district IP cases in Ohio
Case settled by agreement: what the dismissal order means for both sides
Court-supervised settlement dismissal with retained jurisdiction
The court dismissed the case following a settlement agreement, but critically retained jurisdiction under Kokkonen to enforce settlement terms if disputed. This is not a simple Rule 41 voluntary dismissal — the court’s retained jurisdiction gives the settlement agreement the force of a court order, meaning breach can be remedied through contempt rather than a new lawsuit.
Kokkonen jurisdiction retainedMilkmen Design secures undisclosed settlement terms
As plaintiff, Milkmen Design initiated settlement, which typically suggests it extracted some form of value — whether monetary, licensing, or product design change — though the public record is silent on specific terms. The four asserted patents remain in force and unadjudicated on the merits, preserving Milkmen’s ability to assert them against other potential infringers in future actions.
Patents survive, terms undisclosedDGL Group, 1616 Holdings, and Five Below avoid adjudication
The three defendants avoided a court finding of infringement or validity determination on any of the four patents. The mutual cost-bearing provision suggests no party achieved a dominant position. Five Below’s involvement as a downstream retailer is consistent with typical supply-chain litigation dynamics, where the distributor or manufacturer typically leads the defence.
No merits determination reachedRotatable condiment holder IP landscape remains contested
Because the case settled without claim construction or validity rulings, Milkmen Design’s patent portfolio — spanning two utility patents and two design patents — retains full enforceability. Competitors and retailers in the condiment holder and kitchen accessory space should note that both the functional and ornamental aspects of rotatable condiment holders are actively patented and enforced.
Portfolio enforceability intactFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Milkmen Design, LLC | Company | Consumer product IP licensor — holder of US11518287B2 and three related condiment holder patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | DGL Group, Ltd. | Company | DGL Group, Ltd., 1616 Holdings, Inc., and Five Below, Inc. — product distributors and discount retailersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | 1616 Holdings, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Five Below, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Howard L. Wernow | Attorney | Counsel for Milkmen Design, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James F. McCarthy , III | Attorney | Counsel for Milkmen Design, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sophia E. Auten | Attorney | Counsel for Milkmen Design, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA | Law Firm | Representing Milkmen Design, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., Canton | Law Firm | Representing Milkmen Design, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eleina K. Thomas | Attorney | Counsel for DGL Group, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael F. Sarney | Attorney | Counsel for DGL Group, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Zena B. Elliott | Attorney | Counsel for DGL Group, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gertsburg Licata | Law Firm | Representing DGL Group, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Myers Wolin LLC (Whippany) | Law Firm | Representing DGL Group, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Ohio Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order recites that the case was ‘settled by agreement of the parties’ and that ‘each party shall pay its own costs’ — language that reflects a negotiated resolution without any admission of liability or merits determination. The court’s explicit retention of jurisdiction under Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. is significant: it elevates the settlement from a private contract to a court-enforceable obligation, allowing the Northern District of Ohio to adjudicate any breach summarily. No royalty amounts, licensing terms, or product modifications are disclosed in the public record.
US11518287B2 — Rotatable Condiment Holder Utility Patent
US11518287B2 is a utility patent covering a rotatable condiment holder — a product designed to organise and present condiment containers with a rotating or pivoting mechanism. The application was filed under US17/184726 and the patent issued as an active grant. Complementing this, US10967776B2 (application US16/299677) covers related condiment holder functionality. The two design patents, USD0899196S and USD0960654S, protect the ornamental appearance of the holder products, covering both the base design and a subsequent evolved form of the rotatable variant.
This portfolio — two utility and two design patents on a single product category — reflects a deliberate layered IP strategy that protects both the functional innovation and the distinctive visual appearance of the product. In the competitive kitchen accessories and condiment organiser market, where products are frequently replicated at discount retail price points, such layered protection provides meaningful enforcement leverage. Any manufacturer or retailer introducing a rotating condiment holder with similar aesthetics or mechanism faces exposure across both patent types simultaneously.
Should you run an FTO against US11518287B2 and its companion patents?
Any company developing, importing, or retailing rotatable or stationary condiment holder products — particularly those targeting discount or mass-market retail channels — should treat this portfolio as a live enforcement risk. Milkmen Design has demonstrated willingness to assert all four patents simultaneously against a multi-party supply chain. The absence of any invalidity ruling means the patents carry full presumption of validity. R&D and product teams planning launches in this category need claim-level FTO analysis before commercialisation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11518287B2, US10967776B2, USD0899196S, and USD0960654S against your product specifications, identify design-around opportunities, and flag any pending continuation applications that could extend coverage. Eureka’s litigation overlay also surfaces any parallel enforcement actions or licensing activity connected to Milkmen Design’s portfolio, giving your legal and product teams a complete risk picture before market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11518287B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar condiment holder and kitchenware patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving consumer kitchenware design and utility patent enforcement in U.S. district courts — particularly supply-chain actions naming retailer defendants.
What this case signals for the consumer kitchenware IP landscape
A four-patent assertion against a retail supply chain ending in settlement highlights the licensing leverage small IP holders can achieve in consumer product design.
Design patents amplify leverage in consumer product litigation
Milkmen Design’s assertion combined two utility patents with two design patents. Design patents in consumer goods cases are particularly powerful because they are visually intuitive for juries and difficult to design around without visible product changes. Including both patent types in a complaint raises settlement value significantly.
Retailer defendants signal supply-chain enforcement strategy
Naming Five Below — a major discount retail chain — alongside manufacturer and distributor defendants is a deliberate pressure tactic. Retailers face business disruption risk from injunctions on shelf-ready products, which accelerates settlement timelines. IP holders in the consumer goods space increasingly use retailer defendants to force resolution.
Milkmen v DGL — key questions answered
Milkmen Design asserted four patents: utility patents US11518287B2 and US10967776B2, and design patents USD0899196S and USD0960654S. All four relate to condiment holder and rotatable condiment holder products. The case was filed in the Northern District of Ohio on January 25, 2023.
The case was dismissed by court order on May 13, 2024, following settlement by agreement of all parties. Each party bears its own costs. The specific financial or licensing terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the public record. The court retained jurisdiction under Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. to resolve any disputes over the settlement’s memorialisation.
Five Below, a major U.S. discount retailer, was named alongside manufacturer/distributor defendants DGL Group and 1616 Holdings. Naming downstream retailers is a common plaintiff strategy in consumer product patent cases — retailers face injunctive risk on stocked products and reputational pressure, which can accelerate settlement. The public record does not specify Five Below’s role in the alleged infringing supply chain.
Under Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994), a federal court retains jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement if it expressly incorporates that agreement or conditions dismissal on compliance. Here, the Northern District of Ohio retained jurisdiction, meaning any breach of the settlement can be raised directly in that court without filing a new lawsuit — giving the settlement agreement effectively the enforcement power of a court order.
Yes. Because the case settled without any court ruling on validity or infringement, all four patents — US11518287B2, US10967776B2, USD0899196S, and USD0960654S — remain in force with full presumption of validity. Milkmen Design retains the right to assert these patents against other parties. The settlement creates no adverse precedent and does not affect the patents’ enforceability against third parties.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.