Pizza Pack v. Carty: Pizza Storage Container Patent Infringement Dismissed Without Prejudice
Pizza Pack, LLC filed suit in the Oregon District Court against William J. Carty, alleging infringement of three patents covering pizza storage container technology through Carty’s personally labeled swag pizza storage containers. After 306 days of litigation, Pizza Pack voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A), leaving the door open for potential future action.
Pizza Pack’s Three-Patent Container Suit Ends Without Merits Ruling
On July 19, 2024, Pizza Pack, LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Case No. 3:24-cv-01181) before Judge Adrienne Nelson. The complaint alleged that William J. Carty infringed three Pizza Pack patents — US11738935B1, US974123A, and US11661260B1 — all directed to pizza storage container technology. The accused product was Carty’s personally labeled swag pizza storage containers, which Pizza Pack contended competed with or copied its own Pizza Storage Container product.
On May 21, 2025, Pizza Pack’s counsel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A), terminating the action without prejudice and without any award of costs or attorneys’ fees to either party. Because the dismissal was filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) — a unilateral plaintiff dismissal requiring no court order — no substantive rulings on validity, infringement, or claim construction were issued. The without-prejudice designation means the three asserted patents remain available to Pizza Pack for future enforcement.
A 306-day duration before voluntary dismissal is consistent with cases that proceed through early discovery or initial motion practice before settlement negotiations or strategic reassessment prompt withdrawal. The public record does not disclose whether a private settlement was reached, whether claim construction or validity concerns influenced the decision, or whether the parties resolved the dispute commercially. The absence of any costs award suggests the dismissal was agreed or at least uncontested, though the record is silent on the underlying commercial dynamic.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 306 days
306 days — above the median for voluntarily dismissed district court patent cases
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice: what the termination means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Rule 41(a)(1)(A) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal takes effect immediately upon filing. Because no substantive court order accompanies this termination, no ruling on infringement, validity, or damages was made. This is a procedural exit — not a judgment on the merits.
No merits adjudicationDismissal without prejudice preserves Pizza Pack’s future options
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying claims. Pizza Pack retains the right to refile suit on the same patents against Carty or other parties. The public record does not specify whether this was a negotiated resolution or a unilateral decision. The distinction matters: a settlement would typically signal a commercial resolution, while a unilateral dismissal may indicate strategic reassessment. The record is silent on which applies here.
Re-filing remains possibleCarty faces no judgment — but infringement cloud persists
William J. Carty obtained no declaration of non-infringement and no ruling on patent validity. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means the litigation risk associated with the three Pizza Pack patents has not been extinguished. Carty or any successor to his pizza storage container business should treat these patents as live enforcement risks unless a licence or separate settlement agreement was privately executed.
No invalidity ruling obtainedThree active container patents remain enforceable in the market
With no validity challenge resolved and the case dismissed without prejudice, US11738935B1, US974123A, and US11661260B1 remain as active enforcement assets for Pizza Pack. Competitors and retailers in the pizza storage and food container segment — particularly those selling branded or private-label variants — should assess freedom-to-operate against this patent family. The case signals Pizza Pack’s willingness to litigate, even against individual sellers.
Patents remain in forceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pizza Pack, LLC | Company | Pizza storage container innovator — holder of US11738935B1, US974123A, and US11661260B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | William J Carty | Individual | William J. Carty — individual alleged to sell personally labeled swag pizza storage containersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark S. Hubert | Attorney | Counsel for Pizza Pack, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen P. McCarthy | Attorney | Counsel for Pizza Pack, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mark S. Hubert PC | Law Firm | Representing Pizza Pack, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McCarthy Law Firm, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Pizza Pack, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Adrienne Nelson | Judge | Oregon District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A), the self-executing plaintiff dismissal mechanism that requires no judicial approval and produces no order on the merits. The express inclusion of ‘without costs or attorneys’ fees to any party’ is notable: it forecloses any subsequent fee motion by Carty and suggests either mutual agreement or at minimum an uncontested exit. No claim construction, infringement analysis, or validity determination was entered, leaving the legal status of all three patents unchanged.
US11738935B1, US974123A & US11661260B1 — Pizza Storage Container Technology
The three patents asserted in this case — US11738935B1, US974123A, and US11661260B1 — collectively cover pizza storage container technology as commercialised by Pizza Pack, LLC. US11738935B1 and US11661260B1 are recent grants with application numbers US17/727683 and US18/160279 respectively, indicating a continuing patent family strategy with successive filings to expand or refine claim coverage. US974123A represents an earlier asset in the portfolio. Together, these patents suggest Pizza Pack has pursued a layered IP strategy to protect its core pizza storage container product.
For the food storage and kitchenware sector, a multi-patent portfolio asserted against even individual sellers signals that Pizza Pack views its container IP as commercially critical. The willingness to file in federal court against a personally labeled product line — rather than issuing a cease-and-desist — indicates an active enforcement posture. Competitors developing pizza storage solutions, branded packaging suppliers, and private-label kitchenware brands should assess whether their products fall within the claim scope of any of these three patents before market entry or product refresh.
Should your pizza storage container product be cleared against US11738935B1?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or retailing pizza storage containers in the U.S. market faces non-trivial infringement exposure from Pizza Pack’s three-patent portfolio. This includes OEMs supplying branded containers, food delivery businesses sourcing custom pizza storage solutions, and e-commerce sellers of pizza accessories. The fact that Pizza Pack pursued an individual seller with personally labeled products — not just major competitors — suggests a low threshold for enforcement action.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11738935B1, US974123A, and US11661260B1 against your specific product configuration, flagging potential overlap and identifying design-around opportunities. Eureka also tracks the prosecution history of each patent in the family, enabling a more precise assessment of claim breadth than a manual search. For product teams preparing a launch or refresh in the pizza storage category, an Eureka-powered FTO report provides the evidentiary foundation for a legal clearance opinion.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11738935B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Pizza Storage & Food Container Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Browse related patent infringement actions involving food storage container IP in U.S. district courts, including cases with comparable voluntary dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the pizza storage container IP landscape
Pizza Pack’s filing against an individual seller demonstrates a low-threshold enforcement posture across its three-patent container portfolio.
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not a clean exit for defendants
The without-prejudice dismissal leaves all three patents — US11738935B1, US974123A, and US11661260B1 — fully available for re-assertion. Any party making, selling, or importing pizza storage containers in the U.S. market should treat these patents as active enforcement risks and conduct FTO analysis before product launch or expansion.
Asserting three patents against a single individual signals broad claim coverage
Filing a three-patent infringement action against an individual’s personally labeled products suggests Pizza Pack believes its patent portfolio covers a wide range of pizza storage container configurations. This enforcement breadth is commercially significant for OEMs, retailers, and brands considering entry or expansion in this niche. Patent scope analysis across all three asserted patents is advisable.
Pizza v William — key questions answered
Pizza Pack, LLC filed a patent infringement action against William J. Carty in the Oregon District Court on July 19, 2024, asserting three patents covering pizza storage container technology. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on May 21, 2025, after 306 days, with no costs or attorneys’ fees awarded to either party. No merits ruling was issued.
Pizza Pack asserted three patents: US11738935B1 (application no. US17/727683), US974123A (application no. US1907403980), and US11661260B1 (application no. US18/160279). All three relate to pizza storage container technology and form part of Pizza Pack’s commercial IP portfolio protecting its Pizza Storage Container product.
A dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A) means Pizza Pack retains the right to refile suit on the same patents against the same or different defendants. No court ruled on validity, infringement, or damages. The three asserted patents remain fully enforceable, and market participants in the pizza storage container space should treat them as active litigation risks.
The public record does not disclose whether a private settlement was reached. The dismissal notice is silent on the existence of any settlement agreement. A 306-day duration before voluntary dismissal is consistent with cases that reach early resolution discussions, but no settlement terms were filed with the court. The commercial outcome between the parties is not publicly known.
Pizza Pack alleged that Carty’s personally labeled swag pizza storage containers infringed one or more of the three asserted patents. The accused products were distinct from Pizza Pack’s own Pizza Storage Container product. No claim construction or infringement analysis was published by the court, as the case was dismissed before any substantive ruling.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.