Ministrap v. Fantasia Trading: Cable Strap Patents vs. Anker Powerline — Dismissed With Prejudice
Ministrap, LLC asserted three U.S. patents covering cable management strap technology against Fantasia Trading, LLC — the U.S. distributor of Anker’s Powerline USB and Lightning cable range. Filed in the Eastern District of Texas in October 2024, the case resolved in just 153 days with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice and each party bearing its own costs.
Cable Strap IP Meets Anker’s Powerline Line in a Swift E.D. Texas Exit
On October 8, 2024, Ministrap, LLC filed suit against Fantasia Trading, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00827), asserting infringement of three patents — US8371000B1, US9386824B1, and US7587796B1 — all relating to cable management strap technology. The accused products were ten distinct Anker Powerline USB-A to Lightning, USB-C to USB-A, and USB-C to USB-C cables ranging from 3 to 10 feet in length, sold by Fantasia Trading as Anker’s U.S. distribution entity.
The case closed on March 10, 2025, via a joint stipulation of dismissal accepted by the court. The dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning Ministrap is permanently barred from reasserting these specific patent claims against Fantasia Trading in any future action. Notably, the court ordered each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs — a term consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a court-imposed fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
The 153-day duration from filing to closure is notably short for a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas, suggesting the parties reached a private resolution — likely a license or covenant not to sue — soon after service and initial pleadings. The public record does not disclose the financial terms, if any, of the underlying agreement, leaving the value of the settlement and the scope of any license to Fantasia Trading’s Anker product portfolio undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 153 days
153 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for patent dismissals, suggesting early settlement
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice is a permanent bar on refiling
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Ministrap cannot refile these three cable strap patent claims against Fantasia Trading in any U.S. court. The joint stipulation signals mutual agreement — courts do not impose with-prejudice terms unilaterally absent a motion; both parties consented to finality here.
Rule 41(a) — final on the meritsMinistrap forfeits the right to refile — but terms remain private
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Ministrap permanently surrendered its infringement claims against Fantasia Trading over these three patents. However, this does not invalidate the patents themselves. Ministrap likely retained enforcement rights against other parties. The own-costs order suggests Ministrap received some form of private consideration — a license or lump-sum — making the dismissal commercially rational rather than a capitulation.
Patents survive; claims extinguishedFantasia Trading secures certainty for Anker’s Powerline cable range
Dismissal with prejudice provides Fantasia Trading with a permanent shield against Ministrap’s three asserted patents for its Anker Powerline USB and Lightning cable products. Future infringement claims under US8371000B1, US9386824B1, or US7587796B1 by Ministrap against Fantasia Trading are foreclosed. If a license was granted, it likely extends to future Anker cable SKUs depending on agreed scope — providing meaningful commercial certainty.
Permanent bar on reassertionRapid resolution typical of licensing-driven cable IP assertions
The swift 153-day resolution is consistent with a licensing business model where the asserting entity seeks royalties rather than an injunction. Other USB and Lightning cable distributors and OEMs should note that Ministrap’s three patents remain active and enforceable against third parties. Companies commercialising braided or managed cable products — especially USB-C and Lightning form factors — should assess freedom-to-operate exposure against this patent family.
Licensing model — patents still activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ministrap, LLC | Company | Cable management IP licensing entity — holder of US8371000B1, US9386824B1, US7587796B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fantasia Trading, LLC | Company | Fantasia Trading, LLC — U.S. distributor of Anker-branded USB and Lightning cablesSearch 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 counsel | Jonathan Lloyd Hardt | Attorney | Counsel for Ministrap, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kenneth Andrew Matuszewski | Attorney | Counsel for Ministrap, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Ministrap, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason Liang Xu | Attorney | Counsel for Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Edward Handy | Attorney | Counsel for Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Rimon P. C. | Law Firm | Representing Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s acceptance of the joint stipulation is procedural rather than merits-based — the court made no finding on infringement or validity. The phrase ‘all claims and causes of action…are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ is conclusive as between these two parties but carries no precedential weight on the patent’s validity or scope. The ‘denied as moot’ language for pending relief confirms no substantive rulings were entered, leaving the three asserted patents unscrutinised by the court and fully enforceable against the broader market.
US8371000B1, US9386824B1 & US7587796B1 — Cable Management Strap Technology
The three asserted patents — US8371000B1, US9386824B1, and US7587796B1, filed under application numbers US12/548377, US13/765168, and US11/670829 respectively — relate to cable management strap technology. This category of IP covers mechanical systems and configurations for attaching, bundling, or securing cables, a function directly relevant to braided consumer USB and Lightning cable products where integrated or attachable cable management features are commonplace. The patents’ B1 designation indicates they issued without any post-grant amendment, suggesting the claims emerged from prosecution unchanged.
For the consumer electronics accessories sector, cable management IP occupies a commercially sensitive zone — virtually every premium braided USB, USB-C, or Lightning cable sold at retail incorporates some form of strap or bundling element. Ministrap’s portfolio of three granted patents across different application lineages suggests a deliberate strategy to establish layered claim coverage. Competitors and distributors commercialising Powerline-style braided cables should treat this patent family as an active enforcement risk: the Fantasia Trading resolution confirms the patents have sufficient credibility to drive licensing outcomes.
Should you run an FTO against US8371000B1, US9386824B1, and US7587796B1?
Any company designing, importing, distributing, or retailing braided USB, USB-C, or Lightning cables incorporating cable management straps or bundling mechanisms in the U.S. market should assess freedom-to-operate exposure against Ministrap’s three-patent portfolio. The Anker Powerline product range — spanning multiple lengths and connector types — was targeted precisely because of its strap-equipped designs. If your cable SKUs feature similar integrated or attached management elements, the risk profile is directly comparable.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and IP teams to map claim language from US8371000B1, US9386824B1, and US7587796B1 against your specific cable product configurations. Eureka can surface design-around opportunities, identify prior art relevant to claim validity, and flag related continuation or continuation-in-part applications that may extend Ministrap’s enforcement reach. Given the three-patent layered approach demonstrated in this case, a claim-by-claim cross-patent analysis is strongly recommended before any new cable SKU launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8371000B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Cable Accessories Patent Cases in E.D. Texas and U.S. District Courts
Explore patent infringement cases involving cable management, USB accessory IP, and consumer electronics strap technology in the Eastern District of Texas and peer venues.
What this case signals for the USB cable and accessories IP landscape
A rapid, private resolution in E.D. Texas underscores the continuing assertability of cable strap IP against major accessory distributors.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for cable accessories patent assertions
Ministrap’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas — a historically plaintiff-friendly patent venue — is consistent with a licensing strategy. Accessory brands distributing USB and Lightning cables in the U.S. should monitor docket activity in this district for similar cable strap IP assertions, particularly where multiple SKUs across length and connector variants are targeted simultaneously.
Dismissal with prejudice + own costs strongly suggests a private license was reached
The combination of a with-prejudice dismissal and a mutual own-costs order is a classic signal of a negotiated license or settlement payment. Patent teams at consumer electronics and cable accessory companies should treat this outcome as confirmation that Ministrap’s patents are being actively monetised and that resistance will likely be costly relative to a royalty arrangement.
Ministrap v Fantasia — key questions answered
Ministrap, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Fantasia Trading, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas on October 8, 2024, asserting three cable strap patents — US8371000B1, US9386824B1, and US7587796B1 — against Anker Powerline USB and Lightning cable products. The case was dismissed with prejudice on March 10, 2025, via a joint stipulation, with each party bearing its own costs. No merits rulings were issued.
Dismissal with prejudice bars Ministrap from reasserting infringement claims under the three asserted patents against Fantasia Trading specifically. It does not invalidate or limit the patents themselves — US8371000B1, US9386824B1, and US7587796B1 remain granted and enforceable against other parties. Ministrap retains full rights to assert these patents against other cable manufacturers, distributors, or retailers.
Ten Anker Powerline product SKUs were accused, including Powerline+ II Braided USB-A to Lightning cables in 3, 6, and 10-foot lengths (Silver and Black variants), Powerline Select+ USB-C to USB-C cables, Powerline Select Braided USB-C to USB-A cables, and a Powerline Select+ USB-C to Lightning cable. The product range covers USB-A, USB-C, and Lightning connector types across multiple lengths.
The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a preferred venue for patent assertion entities due to its patent-friendly procedural rules, experienced patent judges, and relatively plaintiff-favourable jury demographics. Ministrap’s choice is consistent with a licensing-oriented enforcement strategy targeting a well-capitalised defendant with a large SKU portfolio, where early resolution is commercially rational for both parties.
No. The stipulated dismissal with prejudice operates solely between Ministrap, LLC and Fantasia Trading, LLC. Other entities in the Anker distribution chain — including authorised retailers, online resellers, or sub-distributors — are not bound by this disposition and could face separate infringement actions under the same three patents. Each potentially infringing party would need to obtain its own licence or covenant not to sue from Ministrap.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.