Ministrap LLC v. Costco Wholesale — Secure Strap Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Ministrap LLC filed suit against Costco Wholesale in the Eastern District of Texas asserting three secure strap system patents. After 493 days of litigation, the parties entered a stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — Ministrap’s claims dismissed with prejudice, Costco’s counterclaims without prejudice.
Three Strap Patents, One Retail Giant, and a Finality Signal
Ministrap LLC filed this patent infringement action on July 14, 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three US patents — US8371000B1, US9386824B1, and US7587796B1 — against Costco Wholesale Corporation. The asserted patents collectively cover secure strap systems, a product category directly relevant to Costco’s broad consumer goods retail inventory. The Eastern District of Texas was a deliberate venue choice, consistent with its historically plaintiff-friendly patent litigation environment.
The case closed on November 18, 2024 following a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Ministrap’s claims — including all claims that were or could have been raised — were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be re-filed against Costco on these patents. Costco’s counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Costco’s ability to raise invalidity or other defenses in future proceedings if needed.
The 493-day duration before resolution suggests the parties engaged in substantive pre-trial activity, possibly including claim construction or discovery, before reaching agreement. The with-prejudice dismissal of Ministrap’s claims is the commercially significant outcome: it forecloses future assertion of these three patents against Costco. Whether this reflects a licensing agreement, a settlement with payment, or a strategic retreat remains undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 493 days
493 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved without trial
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal: what the asymmetric terms mean for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) creates a binding, court-accepted dismissal
A stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared and is self-executing upon filing. The court’s acceptance here is confirmatory. Crucially, Ministrap dismissed ‘all claims raised or could have raised’ — the broadest possible scope — making this functionally equivalent to a final judgment on the merits as to Costco.
Finality mechanismWith-prejudice dismissal bars Ministrap from reasserting these patents against Costco
Ministrap’s with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes its right to sue Costco again on US8371000B1, US9386824B1, and US7587796B1. This is the most plaintiff-restrictive outcome short of a trial loss. It does not, however, affect Ministrap’s ability to assert these patents against other defendants. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing fee or settlement payment accompanied this resolution.
Patent rights vs. Costco: exhaustedCostco’s counterclaims survive — dismissed without prejudice
Costco’s counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Costco retains the right to assert invalidity, non-infringement, or other defenses in any future action involving these patents. This asymmetry is commercially meaningful: if Ministrap pursues related claims or Costco’s supply chain partners face similar suits, Costco’s preserved defenses remain available as leverage.
Costco’s defenses preservedAsymmetric dismissal signals a negotiated resolution, not capitulation
The asymmetric structure — plaintiff out with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims out without prejudice — is a hallmark of a negotiated settlement rather than a unilateral abandonment. Retailers and distributors carrying secure strap products should note that the underlying patents remain valid and potentially enforceable against third parties. The case’s 493-day arc before resolution suggests meaningful litigation investment by both sides.
Likely settled — terms undisclosedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ministrap, LLC | Company | Secure strap technology licensing entity — holder of US8371000B1, US9386824B1, and US7587796B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Costco Wholesale, Corp. | Company | Costco Wholesale Corp. — multinational membership retail warehouse chainSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carey Matthew Rozier | Attorney | Counsel for Ministrap, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Francis McDonough , III | Attorney | Counsel for Ministrap, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Ministrap, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Domingo Manuel Llagostera | Attorney | Counsel for Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Russell T. Wong | Attorney | Counsel for Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Blank Rome LLP | Law Firm | Representing Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Blank Rome LLP (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s asymmetric structure is legally precise: Ministrap’s dismissal with prejudice encompasses ‘all claims raised or could have raised,’ invoking the broadest possible claim preclusion scope against Costco. Costco’s counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, explicitly preserving its legal positions. The court’s formal acceptance transforms the stipulation into a court order, reinforcing its preclusive effect. This language is consistent with a negotiated resolution where Costco required finality protection while preserving optionality on its invalidity positions.
US8371000B1, US9386824B1 & US7587796B1 — Secure Strap Systems
The three asserted patents — US8371000B1 (App. No. 12/548377), US9386824B1 (App. No. 13/765168), and US7587796B1 (App. No. 11/670829) — form a patent family covering secure strap systems. The sequential application numbers suggest a continuation or continuation-in-part filing strategy, with the earliest application (US7587796B1) establishing foundational claims later extended in the subsequent patents. Secure strap systems encompass fastening, retention, and securing mechanisms used across consumer goods, outdoor equipment, luggage, and utility applications — all product categories found in Costco’s retail mix.
A three-patent assertion from a single plaintiff against a major retailer is consistent with a licensing programme designed to capture broad product coverage. The breadth of ‘secure strap systems’ as a product category means this patent family could potentially implicate a wide range of Costco SKUs — from luggage straps to cargo tie-downs to wearable retention devices. Competitors and suppliers active in restraint, fastening, or strap-based consumer products should treat this patent family as an active enforcement asset and conduct claim-level FTO analysis before bringing similar products to market.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8371000B1, US9386824B1 and US7587796B1?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or retailing secure strap systems — including luggage straps, cargo restraints, equipment harnesses, or consumer retention accessories — should assess freedom-to-operate against this three-patent family. The with-prejudice dismissal only protects Costco; every other market participant remains exposed. Retailers with private-label strap products and OEM manufacturers supplying the wholesale channel face the highest residual risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US8371000B1, US9386824B1, and US7587796B1 against your product specifications in minutes — identifying overlapping claim elements, surfacing prior art that may narrow enforceability, and flagging continuation applications that could extend the patent family’s reach. For product teams preparing new strap or fastening system launches, an automated FTO report is the fastest route to a defensible clearance position.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8371000B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Secure Strap & Consumer Fastening Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving consumer product patent assertions — particularly fastening and strap systems — in the Eastern District of Texas follow recurring procedural and strategic patterns worth benchmarking.
What this case signals for the secure strap and accessories IP landscape
A with-prejudice dismissal after 16 months in E.D. Texas carries distinct strategic weight for patent holders and retailers alike.
E.D. Texas remains a credible venue for strap and accessories patent enforcement
Ministrap’s filing in the Eastern District of Texas reflects the venue’s continued use for consumer product patent assertions. Despite post-TC Heartland venue constraints, product-distributing defendants like Costco can often be sued where they sell — making E.D. Texas viable for broadly distributed retail goods. Companies with national retail distribution should audit strap and restraint system IP exposure proactively.
With-prejudice dismissal does not extinguish the patents — third-party risk remains
US8371000B1, US9386824B1, and US7587796B1 are not invalidated or expired by this dismissal. Ministrap retains full enforcement rights against any party other than Costco. Suppliers, private-label manufacturers, and competing retailers selling secure strap products should treat these patents as active litigation risks and consider FTO analysis before commercialising similar products.
Ministrap v Costco — key questions answered
Ministrap’s claims against Costco are permanently barred. The dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) means Ministrap cannot refile the same claims against Costco on patents US8371000B1, US9386824B1, or US7587796B1. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other parties.
In the joint stipulation, Costco’s counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice — meaning Costco did not waive its right to raise invalidity or non-infringement arguments in any future proceeding. This asymmetry typically reflects a negotiated settlement in which the defendant insisted on preserving its legal positions as a condition of resolving the case.
Ministrap asserted US8371000B1 (App. No. 12/548377), US9386824B1 (App. No. 13/765168), and US7587796B1 (App. No. 11/670829) — a patent family covering secure strap systems. The sequential application numbers suggest a continuation filing strategy designed to extend claim coverage over the product category.
The case ran for 493 days, from filing on July 14, 2023 to closure on November 18, 2024. This duration is above average for E.D. Texas cases resolved without trial and suggests substantive litigation activity — likely including discovery and potentially claim construction proceedings — before the parties reached resolution.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal only protects Costco. Ministrap’s three asserted patents remain active and enforceable against any other manufacturer, importer, or retailer of secure strap systems. Companies operating in this product space should conduct independent freedom-to-operate analysis against the Ministrap patent family before commercialising similar products.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.