Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
MVN Entertainment v. Sakar International — Powered Riding Device Patent | PatSnap
Patent Litigation

MVN Entertainment v. Sakar International: Powered Riding Device Patents Dismissed

MVN Entertainment, LP brought a patent infringement action against Sakar International, Inc. in the Southern District of New York, asserting two patents covering powered wheeled riding devices. The case resolved in 199 days when the court dismissed the action following advice that all claims had been settled in principle.

Resolution time
199days
199 days from filing to close — a relatively swift resolution for a multi-patent district court infringement action
Patents asserted
2
US11548583B2 and US11433966B2 — two patents covering powered wheeled riding devices
Outcome
Case Dismissed
Dismissed without prejudice; right to reopen within 30 days if settlement not consummated
Cost ruling
No Costs
Court ordered dismissal without costs to either party
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Swift dismissal after settlement in principle in NY powered riding device IP dispute

MVN Entertainment, LP filed this patent infringement action on April 3, 2023 in the Southern District of New York before Judge P. Kevin Castel, asserting US11548583B2 and US11433966B2 against Sakar International, Inc. Both patents relate to powered wheeled riding devices. The action was designated an infringement action and proceeded at the district court level.

The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Dismissed'. The docket order states the court was advised that all claims had been settled in principle, and accordingly dismissed the action without costs and without prejudice, reserving the right to reopen within thirty days if the settlement was not consummated. The order further noted that court jurisdiction to enforce any settlement agreement would require submission of that agreement to the court within the same thirty-day window for it to be 'so ordered' and made part of the public record. The specific terms of any underlying settlement are not disclosed in the available record.

The 199-day duration from filing to close suggests the parties reached their settlement in principle well before trial. What drove the resolution — whether claim scope, freedom-to-operate concerns, or commercial negotiation — is not apparent from the public record. It also remains unknown whether the parties submitted a settlement agreement to the court within the thirty-day window or whether the court retained enforcement jurisdiction.

See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →
Case at a glance
CourtNew York Southern District Court
JudgeP. Kevin Castel
FiledApril 3, 2023
ClosedOctober 19, 2023
Duration199 days
OutcomeCase Dismissed
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisCase Dismissed
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / New York Southern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Case Dismissed in 199 days

199 days from filing to close — a relatively swift resolution for a multi-patent district court infringement action

Case timeline: Complaint filed APR 3 2023 — 199 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in MVN Entertainment, LP v Sakar International, Inc. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, New York Southern District Court. APR 3 2023 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings OCT 19 2023 Case Dismissed 199 DAYS TOTAL
Patent at issue

US11548583B2 & US11433966B2 — Powered Wheeled Riding Devices

Publication No.US11548583B2
Application No.US17/653058
Patent details
ProductPowered wheeled riding device — structural and mechanical configuration
Cited in actionApril 3, 2023

Publication No.US11433966B2
Application No.US16/853739
Patent details
ProductPowered wheeled riding device — alternative embodiment or method claims
Cited in actionApril 3, 2023
Technical brief · sourced from PatSnap patent database
Patent figurePatent figure
Representative claim (1 of 2 independent)
1. A powered wheeled riding device, comprising: a first chassis part supporting a first footpad, a first wheel and a first drive motor, the first motor being configured to drive the first wheel about a first chassis axis, the first chassis part terminating along the first chassis axis at a first chassis part inner end disposed on a side of the first footpad opposite the first wheel; a second chassis part supporting a second footpad, a second wheel and a second drive motor, the second motor being configured to drive the second wheel about a second chassis axis, the second chassis part terminating along the second…
Technical background
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION This application is a continuation application of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/853,739 filed Apr. 20, 2020; which claims priority to U.S. Application Ser. No. 62/836,651, filed Apr. 20, 2019, and Ser. No. 63/006,344, filed Apr. 7, 2020. The entirety of each of these priority applications is hereby incorporated by reference. BACKGROUND The present disclosure relates to the field of powered wheeled riding toys. Wheeled riding toys, such as wheeled riding horses, are well known.…
Patent family
28 family members across 9 jurisdictions (US, EP, BR, GB, MX, AU, EA, WO, DE)
PatSnap Eureka · FTO Search Agent
Should you run an FTO against US11548583B2 and US11433966B2?

Any company manufacturing, importing, distributing, or selling powered wheeled riding devices in the US market should assess its exposure against US11548583B2 and US11433966B2. These patents were actively litigated in the Southern District of New York and neither was invalidated or narrowed by this proceeding. Consumer electronics distributors, OEM suppliers, and e-mobility product teams are the most directly at-risk audiences, particularly those whose products fall within the broader personal mobility platform category.

Run FTO in Eureka
Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

The Court having been advised that all claims asserted herein have been settled in principle, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled action be and is hereby dismissed and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within thirty days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated. To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed within thirty days of this Order; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. Further, if the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they must submit the settlement agreement to the Court within the same thirty-day period to be “so ordered” by the Court. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record. Any pending motions are moot. All conferences are vacated. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED.
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:23-cv-02772, New York Southern District Court

The court's dismissal order was issued upon advice that all claims had been settled in principle, without costs and without prejudice. The order preserved a thirty-day window for the parties to consummate the settlement or to submit any settlement agreement to the court for retained enforcement jurisdiction. No merits finding — on infringement, validity, or damages — was entered against either party.

PACER case 1:23-cv-02772 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Dismissal terms

Case dismissed: what the court's order means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Dismissed without prejudice after settlement in principle

The court dismissed the action without prejudice upon being advised that all claims had been settled in principle. A without-prejudice dismissal means the action is not finally extinguished on the merits — MVN Entertainment retained the right to reopen within thirty days if the settlement was not consummated. Whether the case was ultimately reopened or the dismissal became final is not disclosed in the available record.

No merits adjudication
Patent holder outcome

MVN Entertainment exits without a court ruling on validity or infringement

As plaintiff and patent holder, MVN Entertainment obtained no judicial finding of infringement or damages. The dismissal preserves the patents US11548583B2 and US11433966B2 as valid and enforceable instruments — their enforceability is unaffected by this dismissal. The specific terms of any agreed resolution are not disclosed in the available record.

Patents remain enforceable
Defendant outcome

Sakar avoids an infringement finding, but record is silent on terms

Sakar International, Inc. faces no court-entered finding of infringement. The without-prejudice dismissal means no preclusive judgment attaches to Sakar on the asserted claims. Whether any commercial terms, licensing arrangement, or other agreement were reached between the parties is not disclosed in the available public record.

No infringement finding
Commercial implications

Asserted patents remain live enforcement tools in powered riding device sector

With no invalidity or non-infringement ruling entered, US11548583B2 and US11433966B2 remain potent enforcement assets for MVN Entertainment. Competitors and manufacturers in the powered wheeled riding device space should note that these patents have been actively asserted and were not invalidated or narrowed by this proceeding. Monitoring MVN Entertainment's enforcement posture and portfolio activity is advisable for product teams in this category.

Active enforcement risk remains
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:23-cv-02772 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffMVN Entertainment, LPCompany/Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantSakar International, Inc.Company/Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJeffrey W ShieldsAttorneyCounsel for MVN Entertainment, LPSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRick A. VarnerAttorneyCounsel for MVN Entertainment, LPSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselUsher Thomasson Winslett , IIIAttorneyCounsel for MVN Entertainment, LPSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmShields Law OfficesLaw FirmRepresenting MVN Entertainment, LPSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmWinslett Studnicky McCormick & Bomser, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting MVN Entertainment, LPSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselChristopher LisiewskiAttorneyCounsel for Sakar International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDouglas Alan MiroAttorneyCounsel for Sakar International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmAmster Rothstein & Ebenstein, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Sakar International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge P. Kevin CastelJudgeNew York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
R&D signals

R&D signals in the powered wheeled riding device patent space

Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from MVN Entertainment's assertion of US11548583B2 and US11433966B2 against Sakar International in the personal mobility device sector.

Patent portfolio

MVN Entertainment's enforcement footprint in powered mobility IP

MVN Entertainment has asserted at least two structurally related patents — US11548583B2 and US11433966B2 — in a single infringement action. Mapping the full MVN Entertainment portfolio may reveal additional powered mobility patents, continuation filings, or divisional applications that represent future enforcement risk for competitors and distributors in this product category.

Portfolio watch
Technology landscape

Patent filing trends in personal electric mobility platforms

The powered wheeled riding device category — encompassing hoverboards, electric scooters, and self-balancing platforms — has seen significant patent activity as consumer adoption has grown. Understanding filing trends in this space, including which assignees are building the densest claim coverage, helps product teams identify white space and anticipate future enforcement vectors beyond MVN Entertainment.

Filing trend analysis
Competitor IP posture

Sakar International's IP position in consumer electronics and mobility

As a consumer electronics distributor named in a multi-patent infringement action, Sakar International's own patent holdings and any defensive publication strategy are worth assessing. Understanding whether Sakar holds patents in adjacent mobility or consumer device categories can inform both its litigation leverage and its broader competitive IP posture going forward.

Defensive IP assessment
White-space opportunity

Innovation gaps adjacent to US11548583B2 and US11433966B2

With both asserted patents covering powered wheeled riding device configurations, adjacent technical areas — including battery management, safety control systems, connectivity features, and novel form factors for personal mobility platforms — may represent relatively open R&D and patenting opportunities. A gap analysis around the claim boundaries of these two patents can surface defensible white space for product and IP teams.

White-space mapping
Related litigation

Similar powered riding device patent infringement cases in US district courts

Explore related patent infringement actions involving powered wheeled riding devices and personal mobility technology filed in US district courts, including the Southern District of New York.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
MVN Entertainment, LP patent enforcement history, New York Southern District Court case history, MVN Entertainment, LP's full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Hoverboard patent disputesE-scooter IP litigationSDNY infringement dismissalsConsumer mobility FTO cases
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the powered riding device IP landscape

Two actively asserted riding device patents survived this action unchallenged on the merits — a meaningful signal for the sector.

US11548583B2 and US11433966B2 were not invalidated — enforcement risk persists

No court ruled on validity or infringement. Both patents exit this case legally intact and available for further enforcement action. Product teams developing or distributing powered wheeled riding devices should treat these as live risk assets requiring monitoring.

Swift resolution suggests commercial leverage, not a clear technical defence

A 199-day resolution with no substantive motion record visible suggests the parties resolved commercially rather than through a patent validity challenge. This pattern typically signals that the asserted patents held sufficient claim scope to make litigation through to invalidity arguments costly or risky for the defendant.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper enforcement analysis for the powered riding device sector, including district court filing trends and portfolio risk signals.
Portfolio enforcement mapClaim scope risk ratingCompetitor FTO signals
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

MVN v Sakar — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Monitor powered riding device patents before your next product launch

US11548583B2 and US11433966B2 remain enforceable after this proceeding. Use PatSnap Eureka to run FTO searches, track MVN Entertainment's portfolio activity, and monitor new filings in the powered wheeled riding device space.

Disclaimer

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.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.