Ontel Products v. Eht LLC: Miracle Smile Patent Action Dismissed Without Prejudice
Ontel Products Corporation filed suit against Eht LLC in Florida’s Southern District, asserting US11399705B2 covering the Miracle Smile dental device. The case closed just 115 days after filing when Ontel voluntarily dismissed its own action — leaving the door open for future proceedings.
A swift exit: Ontel pulls Miracle Smile infringement suit in 115 days
On February 16, 2024, Ontel Products Corporation — a consumer products company and holder of US11399705B2 relating to the Miracle Smile dental device — filed a patent infringement action against Eht LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 1:24-cv-20609). The case was assigned to Judge Paul C. Huck. Ontel was represented by Dickinson Wright PLLC, while Eht LLC retained Ainsworth & Clancy PLLC.
On June 7, 2024, Ontel filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Judge Huck entered the dismissal order on June 10, 2024, closing the case and ordering each party to bear its own fees and costs. All pending motions were denied as moot. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the public record does not disclose whether the parties reached a settlement or whether Ontel simply elected to withdraw at this stage.
The 115-day lifespan of this case is notably brief, suggesting that either a resolution was reached privately before substantive litigation commenced, or Ontel reassessed its enforcement strategy early. No merits determination was made, meaning no judicial finding on infringement or patent validity exists. What drove the withdrawal — licensing, settlement, claim reassessment, or tactical recalibration — remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 115 days
115 days — well below the typical multi-year district court patent lifecycle
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal: plaintiff’s unilateral exit
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here, Ontel exercised that right, ending the case procedurally without any adjudication on the merits. The court’s role was confirmatory — it entered the dismissal order and closed the case, but made no findings on infringement or validity.
No merits rulingWithout prejudice vs. with prejudice: a critical distinction
A dismissal without prejudice leaves Ontel free to refile the same claims against Eht LLC — subject to applicable statutes of limitations. A dismissal with prejudice would have permanently barred those claims. The court’s order specifies ‘without prejudice,’ meaning the dispute is paused, not resolved. However, the public record is silent on whether a private settlement or license accompanied the withdrawal, which would change the practical effect entirely.
Refiling remains possibleEht LLC avoids an adverse ruling — but faces ongoing uncertainty
Eht LLC secured no declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity. While the immediate litigation risk has been removed, the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means Ontel could reassert US11399705B2 in a future action. Eht LLC has no preclusive shield from this outcome. Each side bearing its own costs suggests neither party extracted a fee-shifting concession, consistent with an early-stage mutual exit.
No invalidity findingPatent remains live and enforceable against the sector
US11399705B2 survives this litigation entirely intact — no claim was cancelled, narrowed, or found invalid. For other companies in the consumer dental device space, this outcome provides no safe harbour. Ontel retains full enforcement rights. The rapid withdrawal may signal an out-of-court resolution that keeps commercial terms confidential, or a strategic decision to pursue alternative enforcement routes.
US11399705B2 enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ontel Product Corporation | Company | Consumer products company — holder of US11399705B2 (Miracle Smile dental device)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Eht, LLC | Company | Eht LLC — accused infringer of Miracle Smile dental device patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alan J. Perlman | Attorney | Counsel for Ontel Product CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John S. Artz | Attorney | Counsel for Ontel Product CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin D. Everage | Attorney | Counsel for Ontel Product CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Ontel Product CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Matthew Clancy | Attorney | Counsel for Eht, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ainsworth & Clancy PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Eht, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Paul C. Huck | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms a procedural closure under Rule 41(a) — no findings of fact or law were made on infringement or patent validity. The ‘without prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it preserves Ontel’s right to refile identical claims. The cost-neutrality provision, with each side bearing its own fees, suggests no party extracted a litigation advantage sufficient to support a fee-shifting motion, consistent with an early-stage exit before substantive motion practice.
US11399705B2 — Miracle Smile dental device technology
US11399705B2, filed under application number US16/611142, protects technology underlying the Miracle Smile product — an at-home cosmetic dental device. The patent was asserted by Ontel Products Corporation, a consumer products company known for direct-response retail products. The patent’s issuance reflects a granted claim scope that Ontel considers sufficiently broad to support infringement allegations against at least one competing product in the consumer oral care market.
For the consumer dental device sector, US11399705B2 represents a live, fully enforceable asset following the dismissal of this case without any validity challenge or claim narrowing. Ontel’s decision to file suit signals that it actively monitors the market for products it believes encroach on this patent’s scope. Companies developing or distributing at-home dental cosmetic devices — particularly those with visual or functional similarity to Miracle Smile — face a meaningful enforcement risk that this case has not diminished.
Should you run an FTO against US11399705B2?
Any company developing, importing, or distributing at-home cosmetic dental devices in the United States should treat US11399705B2 as a priority FTO target. Ontel has demonstrated willingness to enforce, filing suit in the Southern District of Florida within a timeframe consistent with active market surveillance. The patent survived this litigation without any adverse finding — its claims are legally untested and commercially active. Product teams should not assume competitor product similarity to the Miracle Smile is coincidental with safety.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to map US11399705B2 claim elements against product specifications, identify design-around opportunities, and flag continuation applications that may extend the patent family’s reach. Eureka’s citation analysis can also surface prior art not previously raised, informing both FTO assessments and any future IPR petition strategy against this patent.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11399705B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: consumer dental devices, S.D. Florida
Cases involving consumer dental device patents in the Southern District of Florida — explore enforcement patterns, claim outcomes, and licensing signals in this product category.
What this case signals for the consumer dental device IP landscape
A 115-day voluntary withdrawal without prejudice rarely marks the end of a patent enforcement story — it often signals a pivot.
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not a concession — watch for refiling
Ontel’s withdrawal under Rule 41(a) preserves every enforcement option. Companies operating in the Miracle Smile dental device space should monitor US11399705B2 for continuation patents, new assertions, or ITC filings. A swift withdrawal of this kind consistently precedes either a licensing arrangement or a restrategised enforcement campaign.
No merits ruling means no invalidity precedent to rely on
Neither Eht LLC nor any third party can point to this case as proof that US11399705B2 is invalid or not infringed. The patent’s claims are legally untested. Competitors and product teams in the consumer oral care sector should conduct independent FTO analysis rather than relying on the outcome of this proceeding.
Ontel v Eht — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by plaintiff Ontel Products Corporation on June 7, 2024, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Judge Paul C. Huck entered the dismissal order on June 10, 2024. Each side was ordered to bear its own fees and costs. No merits determination was made.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Ontel retains the right to refile the same patent infringement claims against Eht LLC, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. A without-prejudice dismissal does not resolve the underlying dispute and creates no preclusive effect against future litigation.
Ontel asserted US11399705B2, filed under application number US16/611142, covering the Miracle Smile dental device technology. The case was an infringement action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 16, 2024.
US11399705B2 remains fully enforceable. No court found the patent invalid, not infringed, or unenforceable. Other companies in the at-home cosmetic dental device market cannot rely on this case outcome as any form of safe harbour and should conduct independent freedom-to-operate assessments against this patent.
The public record does not disclose the reason. At 115 days, the case closed well before substantive motion practice would typically begin. Possible explanations include a confidential licensing or settlement agreement, a strategic decision to reassess enforcement approach, or a decision to pursue alternative proceedings such as an ITC action. The without-prejudice nature suggests the dispute is not resolved on the merits.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.