Phoenix Worldwide v. Swift Paws: Dog Toy Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Phoenix Worldwide, LLC asserted two patents covering automated fetch dog toy technology against Swift Paws, Inc. and its Fast Fetch product line. The case closed after just 120 days when Phoenix Worldwide filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41 — leaving the door open for future action.
Swift early exit: Phoenix Worldwide drops dog toy patent suit before Swift Paws answers
On 11 July 2024, Phoenix Worldwide, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Swift Paws, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, before Judge Aleta A. Trauger. The action centred on two patents — US11297801B2 and US10609904B2 — alleged to cover automated dog toy technology, with Swift Paws’ Fast Fetch product and the broader swiftpaws.com product range identified as the accused products.
The case closed on 8 November 2024 when Phoenix Worldwide filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Critically, because Swift Paws had not yet filed an Answer or a motion for summary judgment, the dismissal was effected without prejudice as of right — no court order was required, and no consent from the defendant was needed. The public record does not reflect any settlement agreement, licensing deal, or negotiated resolution.
The 120-day lifespan suggests the dismissal was a deliberate strategic choice rather than a consequence of protracted litigation. Phoenix Worldwide may have reassessed claim scope, enforcement economics, or defendant’s design-around position — but the public record is silent on the underlying rationale. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Phoenix Worldwide retains the legal right to refile identical or related claims, meaning competitive risk for Swift Paws has not been fully extinguished.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 120 days
120 days — faster than the median patent case lifespan at district court level
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice: what the record reveals — and conceals
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court order needed
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant files an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Swift Paws had filed neither, so Phoenix Worldwide exercised this right unilaterally. The dismissal took legal effect upon filing — instantly closing the case without any judicial ruling on the merits.
Procedural exit — no merits rulingWithout prejudice confirmed — but what does that mean in practice?
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ expressly preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims in future. The verdict text explicitly states ‘voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice against Defendant.’ This is distinct from a dismissal ‘with prejudice,’ which would bar future action on the same claims. The public record does not indicate whether the parties reached any side agreement — a settlement or licence could exist but simply not be publicly filed.
Refiling right preservedSwift Paws exits without an adverse ruling — but risk is not fully resolved
Swift Paws faces no injunction, damages award, or finding of infringement from this proceeding. However, the without-prejudice nature means Phoenix Worldwide could refile, potentially in a different venue or with amended claims. Swift Paws would be prudent to treat this as a temporary reprieve rather than a clean resolution, particularly if its Fast Fetch product design remains substantially unchanged.
No adverse finding — risk persistsAutomated pet toy sector: two live patents remain on the table
US11297801B2 and US10609904B2 remain valid, in-force patents. The dismissal does not affect their enforceability against Swift Paws or any other party in the automated dog toy space. Competitors and investors in connected or automated pet product technology should note that Phoenix Worldwide has demonstrated a willingness to assert these patents in federal litigation — and retains the option to do so again.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Phoenix Worldwide, LLC | Company | Pet product IP holder — asserting US11297801B2 and US10609904B2 over automated dog toysSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Swift Paws, Inc. | Company | Swift Paws, Inc. — maker of automated fetch dog toys sold via swiftpaws.comSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shane V. Cortesi | Attorney | Counsel for Phoenix Worldwide, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephan R. Wright | Attorney | Counsel for Phoenix Worldwide, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Office Of Shane V. Cortesi | Law Firm | Representing Phoenix Worldwide, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Wright, Cortesi & Gilbreath | Law Firm | Representing Phoenix Worldwide, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John G. Jackson | Attorney | Counsel for Swift Paws, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel PC | Law Firm | Representing Swift Paws, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Aleta A. Trauger | Judge | Tennessee Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text is a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Phoenix Worldwide under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a procedural mechanism, not a judicial decision on the merits. The language explicitly confirms the dismissal is ‘without prejudice,’ which the Federal Rules treat as a default consequence when a plaintiff dismisses before the defendant has filed a responsive pleading. No court order was entered, no infringement finding was made, and no claim construction occurred. The phrasing ‘invoking its right’ confirms Phoenix Worldwide acted unilaterally, consistent with the rule’s requirements.
US11297801B2 & US10609904B2 — Automated Dog Toy Technology
US11297801B2 (application 16/841596) and US10609904B2 (application 14/569715) both sit within the automated and motorised pet toy technology domain. These patents likely protect mechanisms relating to motorised lure systems, retractable line fetch devices, or automated movement patterns designed to engage dogs in interactive play — consistent with the accused Fast Fetch product category. The earlier application number on US10609904B2 suggests it represents foundational technology, with US11297801B2 potentially covering an improvement or extension of that base invention.
For companies active in the pet technology and connected pet product sector, these two patents represent a meaningful enforcement asset. The pet toy market has seen rapid innovation in motorised and app-controlled devices, making robust patent portfolios increasingly contested. The fact that Phoenix Worldwide was willing to file federal litigation signals commercial intent to control automated fetch toy IP. Competitors and new entrants designing motorised dog toys should treat both patents as active infringement risk vectors until they expire or are invalidated.
Should your product team run an FTO against US11297801B2 and US10609904B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing automated fetch toys, motorised dog lures, or retractable play systems for pets should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against both asserted patents. The Swift Paws complaint demonstrates that Phoenix Worldwide actively monitors the market for products that may read on its claims. Retailers stocking automated pet toy lines should also assess indemnification clauses with their suppliers in light of this litigation history.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US11297801B2 and US10609904B2 against your product specifications, flag prosecution history estoppel, and surface continuation applications still pending in the family. Teams can run a landscape analysis across the automated pet toy patent space to identify white space, design-around options, and competing patent holders — reducing the risk of a surprise complaint like the one Swift Paws faced.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11297801B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Infringement Cases in Automated Pet Toy Technology
Cases involving automated pet toy and interactive dog toy patents at U.S. district court level — comparable enforcement patterns and voluntary dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the automated pet toy IP landscape
A swift dismissal without prejudice rarely signals the end of a patent dispute — it often marks a tactical reset.
Without-prejudice dismissals in patent cases warrant ongoing monitoring
Phoenix Worldwide’s Rule 41 exit preserves every enforcement option. Companies in the automated pet toy and interactive dog toy space should monitor both US11297801B2 and US10609904B2 for continuation filings, IPR petitions, and any refiled district court complaints. A 120-day case with no answer filed suggests early-stage strategic recalibration — not abandonment.
Swift Paws’ window to harden its IP position is now open
With no active litigation and no adverse ruling, Swift Paws has time to commission a freedom-to-operate analysis, consider whether either asserted patent is vulnerable to inter partes review, and evaluate whether product design modifications could reduce future infringement exposure. Waiting for a second complaint would compress that window significantly.
Phoenix v Swift — key questions answered
Phoenix Worldwide, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Swift Paws, Inc. on 11 July 2024 in the Middle District of Tennessee, asserting US11297801B2 and US10609904B2. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 8 November 2024 — 120 days after filing — before Swift Paws filed an answer, using Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Phoenix Worldwide asserted two patents: US11297801B2 (application no. 16/841596) and US10609904B2 (application no. 14/569715). Both relate to automated dog toy technology. The accused products were Swift Paws’ Fast Fetch dog toy and other products sold via swiftpaws.com.
A dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but Phoenix Worldwide retains the right to refile the same patent infringement claims in the future. Swift Paws received no protective ruling, no finding of non-infringement, and no covenant not to sue. The litigation risk from these two patents remains live.
The public record does not indicate a settlement. The dismissal was filed unilaterally by Phoenix Worldwide under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a procedural right that requires no defendant consent and no court order. It is possible a private commercial agreement exists, but no settlement terms are publicly available.
Yes. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice has no effect on the validity or enforceability of the asserted patents. Both US11297801B2 and US10609904B2 remain in force and can be asserted against Swift Paws or any other party in the automated pet toy space. Companies in this product category should continue to treat these patents as active enforcement risk.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.