Milkmen Design v. Walgreens: Condiment Holder Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Milkmen Design, LLC asserted two condiment holder patents against Walgreen Co. in Ohio’s Northern District, alleging infringement of US11518287B2 and US10967776B2. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice just 138 days after filing — before Walgreens filed any answer or dispositive motion.
Early voluntary exit: Milkmen Design drops Walgreens suit with prejudice
On June 13, 2024, Milkmen Design, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Walgreen Co. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, before Judge John R. Adams. The complaint asserted two patents — US11518287B2 and US10967776B2 — both directed to condiment holder technology. Walgreens is one of the largest retail pharmacy and convenience chains in the United States, making it a commercially significant target for a product-focused patent assertion.
The case closed on October 29, 2024, just 138 days after filing, when Milkmen Design filed a unilateral notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Critically, the dismissal was entered with prejudice and on a no-costs basis. Because Walgreens had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permitted Milkmen Design to dismiss without requiring court approval — but the with-prejudice designation means Milkmen Design is permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against Walgreens.
The 138-day resolution is notably swift and suggests a commercial resolution or strategic reassessment occurred early in the litigation, possibly during or shortly after initial case management proceedings. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement was reached or payment exchanged — the filing is silent on those terms. What is clear is that Milkmen Design chose finality over continued litigation, forfeiting its right to re-assert these two patents against Walgreens on the same claims.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 138 days
138 days — resolved well before the typical 12–24 month district court litigation cycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to exit before answer
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without court approval before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion. Here, Walgreens had not yet done either, so Milkmen Design could act unilaterally. The unusual element is the with-prejudice designation — by default, such dismissals are without prejudice, so electing with-prejudice signals a deliberate, permanent exit from this dispute.
Voluntary, unilateral dismissalWith prejudice bars any future suit on the same claims
A with-prejudice dismissal is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Milkmen Design permanently waived its right to re-assert US11518287B2 and US10967776B2 against Walgreens based on the same underlying conduct. This is a stronger concession than a typical without-prejudice exit and raises the question of whether a confidential commercial arrangement underpins the filing — though the public record does not confirm this.
Claim permanently extinguishedWalgreens exits without admitting infringement or paying publicly disclosed damages
Walgreens never served an answer, preserving its non-infringement and invalidity positions untested on the record. The no-costs arrangement means neither party bears the other’s legal fees. Walgreens achieves closure on these two patent claims without a merits ruling — a clean exit that does not create adverse precedent. Whether any private commercial terms accompanied the dismissal is not disclosed in the court record.
No merits ruling; clean exitEarly dismissal suggests pre-answer negotiation or portfolio reassessment
Patent cases dismissed with prejudice this early — before an answer is even filed — typically suggest one of two things: a confidential licensing or settlement arrangement, or a strategic decision by the plaintiff to avoid the cost and risk of litigation against a well-resourced defendant. For product companies and retailers facing similar condiment holder or consumer accessories IP claims, this case signals that early engagement can resolve disputes before substantial legal costs are incurred.
Pre-answer resolution signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Milkmen Design, LLC | Company | Consumer product IP holder — asserting US11518287B2 and US10967776B2 condiment holder patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Walgreen, Co. | Company | Walgreen Co. — major U.S. retail pharmacy and convenience chainSearch 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 law firm | Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA | Law Firm | Representing Milkmen Design, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John R. Adams | Judge | Ohio Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly designates the termination as with prejudice — an unusual voluntary election at this stage, since the default under that rule is without prejudice. The with-prejudice language constitutes a final adjudication for res judicata purposes, meaning Milkmen Design cannot re-open these claims against Walgreens. No merits finding was made on infringement or validity of either condiment holder patent. The no-costs provision reflects a negotiated or accepted mutual exit rather than any judicial cost assessment.
US11518287B2 & US10967776B2 — Condiment Holder Technology
US11518287B2 (Application No. US17/184726) and US10967776B2 (Application No. US16/299677) both cover condiment holder technology asserted by Milkmen Design, LLC. These patents protect structural and functional elements of devices designed to hold condiment containers — a product category that spans automotive accessories, food service, and retail consumer goods. The application numbers suggest successive filings, with US10967776B2 representing the earlier priority and US11518287B2 a continuation or related development.
For retail chains like Walgreens that stock consumer accessories and novelty household products, these patents carry commercial risk if their private-label or third-party supplied condiment holders share claimed structural features. The fact that Milkmen Design was willing to assert both patents simultaneously against a major retailer — and then dismiss with prejudice — suggests the portfolio may have value as a licensing instrument even if courtroom enforcement is strategically limited. Companies in the consumer accessories, automotive accessories, and kitchen gadget space should evaluate their products against the claims of both patents.
Should your product team run an FTO against US11518287B2 and US10967776B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or retailing condiment holder devices — including automotive cup-holder accessories, countertop condiment stations, or portable condiment organisers — should consider a freedom-to-operate review against these two patents. The fact that Milkmen Design actively enforced them in federal court, and that the dismissal only covers Walgreens, means both patents remain live enforcement tools against other parties.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11518287B2 and US10967776B2, identify design-around opportunities, and flag any continuation or related applications that may extend the patent family. R&D teams developing next-generation condiment or beverage holder accessories should run this analysis before product launch to avoid entering a contested IP space without visibility.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11518287B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar condiment holder and consumer accessories patent cases
Cases involving consumer product patent enforcement in Ohio Northern District and comparable early Rule 41 dismissals in retail IP disputes.
What this case signals for consumer product patent enforcement in retail
Early dismissals with prejudice in product patent cases often reward defendants who hold their position through the pleading phase.
Rule 41 with-prejudice dismissals permanently close the door on re-assertion
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before any answer, it forfeits all future claims on those patents against that defendant. IP teams defending retail product infringement claims should recognise that holding firm through the early case management phase — without filing an answer — can yield a permanent resolution at minimal cost.
No-costs terms are common in early pre-answer exits — don’t mistake them for wins
Each-party-bears-own-costs language is standard in Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals and does not indicate litigation merit. Both sides avoided fee exposure, but Milkmen Design permanently surrendered its claim position. R&D and product teams should focus on the with-prejudice designation as the operative outcome, not the cost neutrality.
Milkmen v Walgreen — key questions answered
A with-prejudice dismissal is a permanent relinquishment of the asserted claims. Milkmen Design cannot re-file the same infringement claims based on US11518287B2 and US10967776B2 against Walgreens. The dismissal operates as a final adjudication for res judicata purposes, even though no court found infringement or non-infringement on the merits.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal only bars Milkmen Design from asserting these patents against Walgreens. Both US11518287B2 and US10967776B2 remain in force and can be asserted against other defendants. Retailers, manufacturers, and importers of condiment holder products should not assume this dismissal provides any FTO protection for third parties.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Walgreens had not served either, so Milkmen Design could act unilaterally. The court’s role was ministerial — acknowledging the filing rather than granting or denying a motion.
The dismissal specifies each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs. This is typical in unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals and does not reflect a judicial fee assessment. It means neither party can recover legal costs from the other. The provision does not indicate whether any separate commercial arrangement, such as a license payment, was agreed privately.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Case No. 5:24-cv-01007) and was assigned to Judge John R. Adams. The case closed on October 29, 2024, 138 days after it was filed on June 13, 2024. Milkmen Design was represented by attorneys Howard L. Wernow and James F. McCarthy III of Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.