My Two Ladies v. Twice Sheared Sheep: Adjustable Knitting Needle Patent Dispute
My Two Ladies LLC filed suit against Twice Sheared Sheep LLC in Idaho District Court, asserting US10351980B2 covering an adjustable knitting needle and knitting method. The case resolved in 228 days via voluntary dismissal with prejudice under a party agreement, with each side bearing its own costs.
Knitting needle patent suit ends by mutual agreement after 228 days
On June 14, 2024, My Two Ladies LLC — joined by co-plaintiff Twice Sheared Sheep LLC as an Idaho limited liability company — filed a patent infringement action in the Idaho District Court (Case No. 4:24-cv-00286) before Judge David C. Nye. The suit targeted Twice Sheared Sheep LLC over alleged infringement of US10351980B2, a patent directed to an adjustable knitting needle and associated knitting method.
On January 27, 2025, My Two Ladies LLC moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), referencing a private agreement between the parties. The case was formally closed the following day, January 28, 2025. The with-prejudice designation means plaintiff cannot re-assert the same claims against this defendant in a future action.
The 228-day duration and the reference to an inter-party ‘Agreement’ in the dismissal filing are consistent with a negotiated resolution — potentially a licensing arrangement, covenant not to sue, or settlement — though the public record does not disclose the specific terms. The mutual cost-bearing provision suggests neither party extracted a financial concession on litigation expenses, which is typical of balanced settlement outcomes.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 228 days
228 days — resolved before trial, suggesting early settlement or licensing agreement
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice explained
A Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a plaintiff-initiated termination that permanently extinguishes the dismissed claims. Because it is filed with prejudice, the plaintiff is barred from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant. The dismissal here was expressly tied to a private agreement between the parties, suggesting a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal.
Claims extinguished permanentlyPlaintiff voluntarily ends suit — terms of agreement undisclosed
My Two Ladies LLC initiated the dismissal, which relinquishes any right to pursue these specific infringement claims against Twice Sheared Sheep LLC in the future. The reference to an underlying ‘Agreement’ suggests the plaintiff may have secured a licensing arrangement or covenant in exchange for the dismissal, but the public record does not confirm this. Plaintiff retains the patent and may enforce it against other parties.
Patent remains enforceable vs. othersDefendant obtains finality — no further exposure on these claims
The with-prejudice dismissal provides Twice Sheared Sheep LLC with permanent protection against re-litigation of these specific claims by the same plaintiff. The mutual cost-bearing provision means no attorneys’ fees award was entered against either party. The underlying Agreement referenced in the motion may impose ongoing obligations on the defendant — such as royalty payments or product design changes — but these are not visible in the public record.
Protected from re-litigationUS10351980B2 remains active and enforceable in the craft tool sector
The dismissal does not invalidate or limit US10351980B2. Competing manufacturers of adjustable knitting needles and related craft tools should treat this patent as live and enforceable. The plaintiff’s willingness to litigate and reach a private resolution signals active patent enforcement posture. Other market participants in the adjustable needle space should assess their exposure to this patent’s claims independently.
Patent enforceable against third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | My Two Ladies, LLC | Company | Patent holder in adjustable knitting needle technology — asserting US10351980B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Twice Sheared Sheep, LLC, an idaho Limited Liability Company | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Twice Sheared Sheep, LLC | Company | Twice Sheared Sheep LLC — Idaho-based entity accused of infringing knitting needle patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron T. Olejniczak | Attorney | Counsel for My Two Ladies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John P. Dyro , Jr | Attorney | Counsel for My Two Ladies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kenneth C. Howell | Attorney | Counsel for My Two Ladies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Andrus Intellectual Property Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing My Two Ladies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY | Law Firm | Representing My Two Ladies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David C. Nye | Judge | Idaho District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal motion expressly conditions termination on a private inter-party Agreement, which is material. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a stipulated dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, binding both parties. The mutual cost provision forecloses any fee-shifting claim under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The public record does not reveal whether the Agreement includes a licence, royalty, or design-around — leaving the commercial outcome opaque but suggesting a structured resolution favourable enough to both sides to terminate litigation permanently.
US10351980B2 — Adjustable knitting needle and method for knitting
US10351980B2 (application no. US15/621022) protects an adjustable knitting needle design and an associated method for knitting. Adjustable or interchangeable needle systems are a functional category of craft tools that allow users to vary needle tip size, cable length, or connector configuration — addressing a practical need in hand-knitting workflows. The patent’s issuance under a B2 designation indicates it was granted following examination with published prior art considered.
In the craft tool and textile accessory sector, patents on adjustable knitting needle mechanisms are commercially relevant because the category commands premium retail pricing and strong consumer brand loyalty. A valid, enforceable patent in this space can restrict competitors from producing interchangeable or modular needle systems without a licence. The plaintiff’s willingness to file and litigate this suit reinforces that US10351980B2 is being actively monitored and enforced, making it a material IP risk for any brand or manufacturer operating in the adjustable needle market.
Should you run an FTO against US10351980B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing adjustable or interchangeable knitting needles in the US market should treat US10351980B2 as an active enforcement risk. The patent holder has demonstrated a willingness to litigate in federal court, and the with-prejudice dismissal against one defendant does not provide any safe harbour for other market participants. Retailers stocking branded adjustable needle sets and OEM manufacturers producing needle systems for third-party labels are equally exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map the claim scope of US10351980B2 against their specific product configurations, identify prior art that may support a design-around, and surface related patents in the adjustable needle and modular craft tool space. Running a structured FTO before product launch or market entry is the most cost-effective way to assess and manage exposure to this and related patents in the textile accessories category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10351980B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: adjustable craft tools in US district courts
Cases involving craft tool and knitting accessory patents litigated in US district courts, including Idaho District Court infringement actions with voluntary dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the craft tool and textile accessory IP landscape
A fast-moving needle patent suit resolved by private agreement raises enforcement and FTO questions for the broader knitting and craft tool sector.
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice signals a likely negotiated resolution
The explicit reference to a party ‘Agreement’ in the Rule 41(a)(1) motion is a strong signal that this case ended in a structured deal — not unilateral withdrawal. Competitors and licensees in the adjustable knitting needle space should note that the patent holder has both the willingness and legal resources to enforce US10351980B2 actively.
US10351980B2 survives — third-party exposure remains unaddressed
The dismissal resolves claims only between these specific parties. US10351980B2 is fully enforceable against all other market participants. Any manufacturer, importer, or retailer of adjustable knitting needle products operating without a licence should assess infringement risk against this patent’s claim scope without delay.
My v Twice — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on January 28, 2025, following a motion by plaintiff My Two Ladies LLC under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). The dismissal was made pursuant to a private agreement between the parties, with each side bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
The patent asserted is US10351980B2 (application number US15/621022), which covers an adjustable knitting needle and method for knitting. The patent is held by the plaintiff and was the sole patent in suit in this Idaho District Court infringement action.
Yes. A Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice permanently bars the plaintiff from re-asserting the same claims against the same defendant. However, it does not affect the patent’s enforceability against third parties — other potential infringers remain fully exposed to suit.
The reference to a party Agreement in the dismissal filing suggests the case resolved through a negotiated deal — potentially a licence, royalty arrangement, or covenant not to sue. The specific terms are not public. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against all other parties not covered by the agreement.
The plaintiff was represented by attorneys Aaron T. Olejniczak, John P. Dyro Jr., and Kenneth C. Howell of the law firms Andrus Intellectual Property Law LLP and Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley. No defendant counsel is listed in the public record for this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.