Omnisec Solutions v. Simply Mossy Art: Design Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Omnisec Solutions LLC sued Simply Mossy Art, Inc. in the Southern District of New York alleging infringement of USD989355S, a design patent covering ornamental moss pole and coir plant supports. The case closed after just 147 days when Omnisec voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice, ending the action with no award of costs to either party.
A Design Patent Dispute Over Decorative Plant Supports Ends Swiftly
On July 18, 2024, Omnisec Solutions LLC filed a patent infringement action against Simply Mossy Art, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:24-cv-05450), assigned to Judge Gregory H. Woods. The complaint alleged infringement of USD989355S, a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of moss pole and coir-fiber plant support products. A range of accused products were identified, spanning brands including AIGEL, COMOSSIR, SUPERMOSS, TROFOLIO, and PISTILS NURSERY, among others.
The case concluded on December 12, 2024, when Omnisec filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal was entered without any award of costs, expenses, disbursements, or attorneys’ fees to either side. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — Omnisec is permanently barred from reasserting the same infringement claims against Simply Mossy Art on the basis of USD989355S.
At 147 days, the case resolved significantly faster than a typical SDNY patent dispute, suggesting the parties likely reached a private resolution — potentially a license, a design-around agreement, or a commercial settlement — prior to any substantive court rulings. The public record does not disclose the terms of any such arrangement. It is notable that no costs were awarded to the defendant despite the dismissal, which may indicate a negotiated resolution rather than a capitulation.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 147 days
147 days — resolved well under the typical 2–3 year SDNY patent trial cycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff pulls the case before defendant answers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss unilaterally before the defendant serves an answer or files a motion for summary judgment. Here, Omnisec expressly elected dismissal with prejudice — a stricter standard than the default — meaning the court treats the matter as if it had been fully litigated and decided against the plaintiff’s ability to refile.
Voluntary — with prejudiceOmnisec permanently relinquishes these claims against Simply Mossy Art
By specifying ‘with prejudice’, Omnisec Solutions waived any future right to assert USD989355S against Simply Mossy Art for the same accused products. This is a meaningful concession beyond a standard voluntary dismissal. Whether Omnisec received commercial consideration — such as a licensing payment or a design-around commitment — in exchange is not disclosed in the public docket.
Claims permanently extinguishedSimply Mossy Art exits with no liability and no cost award
Simply Mossy Art secured a full exit: the case ended with no finding of infringement, no damages, and no order to pay plaintiff’s or its own attorneys’ fees. The absence of a cost award to the defendant — despite winning the dismissal — is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested ruling. The design patent remains valid and could be enforced against other market participants.
No liability, no cost awardUSD989355S remains live — other moss pole sellers remain exposed
The dismissal resolves the dispute only as between these two parties. USD989355S has not been invalidated or challenged on the merits, and Omnisec retains full enforcement rights against the broader market for ornamental moss poles and coir plant supports. Competing brands — including those named in the original complaint — should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and evaluate their product designs accordingly.
Patent survives, broad market risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Omnisec Solutions LLC | Company | IP enforcement entity — holder of USD989355S, design patent for ornamental plant supportsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Simply Mossy Art, Inc. | Company | Simply Mossy Art, Inc. — retailer or manufacturer of decorative moss pole plant support productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel S. Bretzius | Attorney | Counsel for Omnisec Solutions LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dan B Law PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Omnisec Solutions LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyle B. Fleming | Attorney | Counsel for Simply Mossy Art, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Simply Mossy Art, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Gregory H. Woods | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming dismissal occurred before Simply Mossy Art filed a responsive pleading. The explicit ‘with prejudice’ designation is a significant legal choice — it forecloses any future refiling of these specific claims by Omnisec, converting what would otherwise be a procedural exit into a permanent bar. The mutual no-costs provision, while unusual given the defendant’s effective victory, is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution whose terms remain private.
USD989355S — ornamental design for moss pole plant supports
USD989355S is a U.S. design patent, applied for under application number US29/785592, protecting the ornamental appearance of a plant support product — specifically the visual design of moss pole and coir-fiber structures used to support climbing and epiphytic plants. Design patents protect how a product looks, not how it functions, and are governed by 35 U.S.C. § 171. The design patent designation (‘USD’) signals that infringement analysis focuses on whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product substantially similar in overall appearance to the patented design.
The decorative plant support market — encompassing moss poles, coir totems, and epiphyte supports — has grown substantially alongside the indoor plant retail boom. A design patent in this space can effectively fence out visually similar competing products even where the underlying function (supporting plant growth) is identical across products. With nine accused products named in the complaint, USD989355S appears positioned as a broad design rights asset. Any competitor manufacturing or importing ornamental plant support structures with a similar visual profile should assess their exposure carefully.
Should you run an FTO against USD989355S?
If your business designs, manufactures, imports, or retails moss poles, coir totems, or any ornamental plant support product with a visual profile similar to the patented design, USD989355S warrants a freedom-to-operate review. The nine products named in the Omnisec complaint span a wide range of brands, suggesting the patent holder has defined a broad visual scope. A design patent FTO requires an ‘ordinary observer’ analysis — comparing your product’s ornamental features against the patent drawings claim by claim.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD989355S against your product design, identify prior art that may narrow the patent’s enforceable scope, and surface any related design or utility patent filings by Omnisec Solutions that may indicate a broader IP portfolio. Eureka’s image-based similarity search is particularly well-suited to design patent analysis, allowing R&D and product teams to compare ornamental features visually rather than parsing dense claim language.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD989355S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in consumer horticulture products
Explore related design patent enforcement actions involving ornamental consumer products filed in the Southern District of New York and comparable federal district courts.
What this case signals for the decorative plant support IP landscape
A swift, prejudice-laden exit in a design patent case often signals commercial negotiation rather than legal weakness — and leaves the patent intact.
Design patents for ornamental products carry real enforcement leverage
USD989355S is a design patent, protecting ornamental appearance rather than function. Design patent suits can be potent — the damages standard (infringer’s total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289) is often disproportionately large relative to the cost of enforcement, making them attractive litigation tools even against smaller defendants.
Fast resolution without costs awarded suggests a negotiated exit
Cases that close in under 150 days — especially with no cost award to the apparent winner — typically reflect behind-the-scenes commercial agreement. IP teams monitoring this space should consider that Simply Mossy Art may have agreed to product design changes, a license, or market exit terms that do not appear in the public record.
Omnisec v Simply — key questions answered
USD989355S is a U.S. design patent (application no. US29/785592) protecting the ornamental appearance of a plant support product, specifically the visual design of moss pole and coir-fiber structures used for climbing and epiphytic plants. It does not protect functional aspects of plant supports — only the distinctive visual design as shown in the patent drawings.
The public record does not disclose the reason. However, a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), resolved in under 150 days with no cost award to either party, is typically consistent with a private commercial resolution — such as a license agreement, design-around commitment, or negotiated market exit — rather than a concession of infringement or invalidity.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Omnisec Solutions is permanently barred from reasserting the same infringement claims against Simply Mossy Art, Inc. based on USD989355S for the same accused products. The patent itself, however, remains valid and enforceable against third parties.
Yes. The dismissal resolves the dispute only between Omnisec and Simply Mossy Art. USD989355S was not invalidated or challenged on its merits. Brands identified in the original complaint — including AIGEL, SUPERMOSS, TROFOLIO, PISTILS NURSERY, and others — as well as any other seller of visually similar ornamental plant supports, remain subject to potential enforcement action by Omnisec.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Case No. 1:24-cv-05450, and was assigned to Judge Gregory H. Woods. It was filed on July 18, 2024, and closed on December 12, 2024, after 147 days.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.