Pizza Pack LLC v. Brumis Imports: Collapsible Pizza Container Patents Shift District
Pizza Pack LLC filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against Brumis Imports alleging infringement of two patents covering a collapsible silicone pizza storage container. After 161 days, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice — explicitly signalling intent to refile before a different court alongside its exclusive licensee.
Forum strategy drives dismissal: Pizza Pack pivots to a new judicial district
Pizza Pack LLC initiated this infringement action on 7 April 2025 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge John F. Kness, asserting two intellectual property rights: utility patent US11738935B1 and design patent USD1034109S, both covering the ‘Pizza Pack’ collapsible silicone pizza storage container. The defendant, Brumis Imports, Inc., is an importer alleged to be selling a competing product. Flener IP & Business Law represented the plaintiff; Advitam IP LLC appeared for the defendant.
On 15 September 2025, Pizza Pack filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), bringing the 161-day Illinois proceeding to a close without any merits adjudication. Critically, the dismissal notice stated explicitly that the plaintiff and its exclusive licensee had elected to pursue the matter in a different judicial district, indicating a deliberate forum-selection decision rather than an abandonment of the underlying claims.
A 161-day lifespan before forum transfer is consistent with early-stage strategic recalibration — possibly driven by venue convenience for the exclusive licensee, anticipated co-plaintiff standing requirements, or perceived jurisdictional advantages in the target district. The public record does not disclose which district was selected for refiling or whether any substantive motions were contested in Illinois. The patents-in-suit remain live and enforceable; Brumis Imports continues to face potential liability once the refiled action commences.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 161 days
161 days in N.D. Illinois before voluntary dismissal and district transfer
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1): a dismissal without prejudice leaves the door open
A voluntary dismissal filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) before the opposing party serves an answer or summary judgment motion takes effect automatically — no court order is required. ‘Without prejudice’ means the plaintiff retains the full right to refile the same claims in another court. No merits decision was made; the Illinois proceedings are nullified for litigation purposes, but the underlying patent rights are entirely unaffected.
No merits ruling — claims preservedThe public record confirms: dismissed without prejudice
Unlike a dismissal with prejudice — which would bar Pizza Pack from ever reasserting the same patents against Brumis on the same claims — a without-prejudice dismissal imposes no such bar. The verbatim filing explicitly states ‘without prejudice’ and confirms intent to refile in a new district. Pizza Pack’s claims survive intact; Brumis Imports remains exposed. The distinction matters enormously: with prejudice would have ended the dispute; without prejudice merely relocates it.
Refiling rights fully retainedBrumis Imports: Illinois closes, but litigation risk persists
From Brumis Imports’ perspective, the Illinois dismissal provides only temporary procedural relief. Because the action was dismissed without prejudice, Brumis faces the prospect of being served again in a different — potentially less favourable — forum. Any litigation preparation and prior art research conducted for the Illinois proceeding retains strategic value for the refiled action. Brumis should treat this as an adjournment, not a resolution.
Ongoing exposure in new forumForum choice signals: why the target district matters for IP strategy
Pizza Pack’s explicit reference to its exclusive licensee as a co-party in the new district suggests the licensee’s location or standing requirements may be driving forum selection. Courts vary significantly in median time-to-trial, claim construction approaches, and damages jurisprudence for design and utility patent cases. The combination of a utility patent and a design patent in one action also raises the commercial stakes — design patent damages can be calculated on total article profit under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
Dual patent action: heightened damages exposureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pizza Pack LLC | Company | Food storage product IP owner — holder of US11738935B1 and USD1034109S (Pizza Pack)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Brumis Imports, Inc. | Company | Brumis Imports, Inc. — importer alleged to sell competing collapsible pizza storage productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Edward Judge | Attorney | Counsel for Pizza Pack LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ying Chen | Attorney | Counsel for Pizza Pack LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zareefa Burki Flener | Attorney | Counsel for Pizza Pack LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Flener IP & Business Law | Law Firm | Representing Pizza Pack LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michele Sharon Katz | Attorney | Counsel for Brumis Imports, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Advitam IP LLC | Law Firm | Representing Brumis Imports, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John F. Kness | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action as of right — without court approval — before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The ‘without prejudice’ designation is legally operative: it extinguishes this Illinois proceeding entirely but preserves all claims for refiling. The explicit forum-transfer rationale indicates Pizza Pack is not conceding on the merits; rather, it is repositioning for a stronger procedural posture elsewhere. For Brumis Imports, no findings of non-infringement were made.
US11738935B1 & USD1034109S — Collapsible Silicone Pizza Storage Container
US11738935B1 is a utility patent protecting the functional invention underlying the ‘Pizza Pack’ — a collapsible silicone container designed to store leftover pizza slices. The ‘B1’ designation indicates it issued without a prior publication, suggesting a relatively streamlined prosecution. USD1034109S is a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of the same container. Together, they create overlapping IP coverage: one patent guards function, the other guards form — a strategy that complicates design-arounds for competitors.
The kitchenware and food storage market has seen significant activity in silicone-based collapsible products, and granted utility patents in this category signal that Pizza Pack has secured protectable functional differentiation beyond mere aesthetics. For competitors and importers sourcing similar collapsible pizza containers — particularly from overseas manufacturers — both patents present clearance obligations. The design patent is especially powerful against near-identical product copies, making it a high-value enforcement asset in retail and e-commerce channels.
Should you run an FTO against US11738935B1 and USD1034109S?
Any company importing, distributing, or selling collapsible silicone pizza storage containers in the US market should treat these two patents as live clearance risks. The utility patent may define claims broad enough to capture functionally similar products regardless of cosmetic differences; the design patent targets visual similarity. With the plaintiff explicitly planning to refile in a new district, enforcement activity is imminent — not hypothetical.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map both US11738935B1 and USD1034109S against your product specifications and identify prior art, claim scope boundaries, and design-around opportunities. For importers responding to a potential new filing, Eureka can also surface related family members, continuation risks, and the litigation history of the patent owner — giving procurement and legal teams the intelligence needed to act before service of process.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11738935B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar collapsible kitchenware patent disputes in US district courts
Cases involving utility and design patent co-assertion for consumer kitchenware products in US district courts, with comparable voluntary dismissal and forum-transfer patterns.
What this case signals for the food storage and kitchenware IP landscape
Voluntary forum transfers in product design IP cases often precede more aggressive enforcement — here is what practitioners should watch.
Dual utility + design patent assertions amplify damages risk for importers
Pizza Pack’s pairing of a utility patent (US11738935B1) with a design patent (USD1034109S) is a deliberate enforcement strategy. Design patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289 can reach the infringer’s total profit on the accused article — a potentially devastating exposure for importers with thin margins. Companies distributing competing collapsible container products should treat this case as a warning sign and commission FTO analysis now.
Voluntary dismissal to refile is an offensive tactic, not a retreat
When a plaintiff explicitly states it is moving to a different district to join an exclusive licensee, this typically signals organisational alignment for a stronger, better-resourced case — not weakness. Defendants and competitors in the kitchenware and food storage category should anticipate a refiled, potentially expanded action. Monitoring the target district’s dockets for a new Pizza Pack filing is straightforward and prudent.
Pizza v Brumis — key questions answered
Pizza Pack LLC filed a patent infringement action against Brumis Imports, Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois on 7 April 2025, asserting US11738935B1 and USD1034109S covering a collapsible silicone pizza storage container. On 15 September 2025, Pizza Pack voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), stating it intended to refile in a different judicial district alongside its exclusive licensee.
A without-prejudice dismissal means no merits ruling was made and Pizza Pack retains the right to refile the same claims against Brumis Imports in another court. Brumis receives no legal protection from the Illinois dismissal. The company continues to face potential infringement liability once the new action is filed and served. Any defence preparation from the Illinois proceedings remains relevant.
Pizza Pack asserted two patents: US11738935B1, a utility patent covering the functional aspects of the collapsible silicone pizza storage container, and USD1034109S, a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of the same product. Application numbers US17/727683 and US29/836010 correspond to these patents respectively.
The dismissal notice states that Pizza Pack and its exclusive licensee elected to pursue the matter in a different judicial district. This suggests forum-selection strategy — likely related to the exclusive licensee’s location, standing requirements as a co-plaintiff, or perceived litigation advantages in the target court. The case is expected to be refiled; the target district is not disclosed in the public Illinois record.
Design patent infringement damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289 can be calculated as the infringer’s total profit on the accused article — not merely the profit attributable to the patented design feature. This is a broader damages base than utility patent infringement. For an importer like Brumis Imports, the total-profit measure could produce substantial exposure even on relatively modest sales volumes, making early FTO clearance or settlement assessment commercially important.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.