Pizza Pack v. Target Corp. — Infringement Action Dismissed With Prejudice
Pizza Pack, LLC filed suit against retail giant Target Corp. in the Oregon District Court, asserting three patents covering a pizza storage container and associated trade dress. After 292 days of litigation, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice — permanently closing the door on re-filing the same claims.
Pizza Pack’s three-patent assault on Target ends with finality
On October 18, 2024, Pizza Pack, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Target Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Case No. 3:24-cv-01764), before Judge Amy M. Baggio. The complaint asserted three intellectual property rights: utility patent US11738935B1, design patent USD1034109S, and utility patent US11661260B1, all directed at a pizza storage container product and its associated trade dress.
The case closed on August 6, 2025, when Pizza Pack filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), recorded as ECF 16. The court accepted the notice and formally dismissed the matter with prejudice, directing the Clerk to close the case. Critically, each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting no formal settlement payment is reflected in the public record.
At 292 days, the resolution timeline is consistent with cases that settle or reach agreement before substantive motion practice or claim construction. The dismissal with prejudice — rather than without — is the most consequential procedural choice: Pizza Pack permanently surrendered its right to bring these specific claims against Target again. The absence of defendant counsel on record and the early-stage ECF number (ECF 16) suggest this matter resolved before Target was fully engaged in litigation, though the precise commercial terms driving the dismissal remain undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 292 days
292 days from filing to dismissal — consistent with pre-trial resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows a plaintiff to exit a case by stipulation. The ‘with prejudice’ designation goes further than a standard voluntary dismissal — it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, meaning Pizza Pack cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Target based on these three patents. This is a self-imposed permanent bar, not a court-ordered one.
Permanent claim barWhy ‘with prejudice’ carries more weight than it appears
A dismissal without prejudice would preserve Pizza Pack’s right to re-file. Here, the ‘with prejudice’ designation forecloses that option entirely against Target on these patents. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement was reached — it is silent on payment terms. Practitioners should not assume no value changed hands; with-prejudice dismissals frequently accompany undisclosed commercial resolutions.
No re-filing permittedPizza Pack exits permanently — patents remain enforceable against others
While Pizza Pack permanently surrendered its claims against Target, the three asserted patents — US11738935B1, USD1034109S, and US11661260B1 — remain in force and are fully enforceable against other parties. The dismissal does not constitute invalidity or abandonment. Pizza Pack retains the right to assert these patents in future actions against any other accused infringer in the market.
Patents survive; Target claims closedTarget secures finality with no cost exposure on this record
Target benefits from a with-prejudice dismissal: Pizza Pack cannot revive these specific claims against it. The cost-bearing arrangement — each party pays its own fees — means Target absorbed its own defense costs with no award either way. With no defendant counsel appearing on the public docket, Target’s litigation exposure here appears to have been contained, though the underlying commercial dynamic driving the exit is not publicly known.
Final resolution for TargetFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pizza Pack, LLC | Company | Consumer products IP holder — inventor of pizza storage container patents US11738935B1 and US11661260B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Target, Corp. | Company | Target Corp. — major U.S. mass-market retailer accused of infringing pizza container IPSearch 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 | Hitt Hiller Monfils Williams LLP | Law Firm | Representing Pizza Pack, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mark S. Hubert PC | Law Firm | Representing Pizza Pack, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amy M. Baggio | Judge | Oregon District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice (ECF 16) invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which requires a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. The ‘with prejudice’ qualifier transforms what would otherwise be a procedural exit into a final disposition on the merits — precluding re-litigation of the same claims against Target. The court’s direction that each party bear its own costs is standard for negotiated exits and does not indicate judicial evaluation of the merits of either party’s position.
US11738935B1, USD1034109S & US11661260B1 — Pizza Storage Container IP
The three asserted patents together cover both the functional and ornamental dimensions of a pizza storage container product. US11738935B1 and US11661260B1 are utility patents, protecting the structural and operational innovations of the container design, filed under application numbers US17/727683 and US18/160279 respectively. USD1034109S is a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of the product, filed under US29/836010. This multi-layered IP strategy — combining utility and design protection — is typical of consumer product companies seeking comprehensive control over a product category.
In the consumer food storage market, design and utility patents covering novel container formats can create meaningful competitive moats, particularly when a product achieves retail distribution. By asserting all three patents against Target, Pizza Pack signalled that it views its IP portfolio as broadly applicable to competing products sold through mass-market retail channels. Competitors developing similar pizza storage, portion container, or stackable food storage products should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk — the with-prejudice dismissal against Target does not limit enforceability against others.
Should your product team run an FTO against US11738935B1 and related patents?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing pizza storage containers, portion-based food storage systems, or visually similar stackable food containers should evaluate freedom-to-operate against Pizza Pack’s portfolio. This is particularly relevant for private-label product developers, kitchenware brands, and retailers sourcing food storage SKUs. The active enforcement history — including a filed suit against a major retailer — confirms this is not a dormant portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11738935B1, USD1034109S, and US11661260B1 against your product specifications, flag potentially overlapping prior art, and identify design-arounds. Eureka’s landscape analysis also surfaces related pizza and food storage patent families, helping R&D and procurement teams make informed product decisions before market entry or sourcing commitments.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11738935B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar pizza container and consumer packaging patent cases
Cases involving utility and design patent enforcement over consumer food storage products in U.S. district courts, with comparable voluntary dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the consumer packaging IP landscape
A three-patent infringement action against a major retailer, closed with prejudice inside 300 days, carries clear signals for IP strategy in the consumer products sector.
Design and utility patent stacking amplifies leverage against retailers
Pizza Pack asserted both utility patents and a design patent simultaneously, covering the functional and aesthetic dimensions of the same product. This multi-patent approach is increasingly common in consumer goods litigation and raises the cost and complexity of defense for accused retailers. Companies in the food storage and kitchenware category should audit whether competitor IP portfolios use similar stacking strategies.
Early-stage exits with prejudice may signal undisclosed licensing terms
The case closed at ECF 16 — an unusually low docket number indicating minimal court activity. Combined with the with-prejudice designation and no cost award, this pattern is consistent with a confidential licensing or settlement agreement reached before substantive litigation began. Monitoring such early dismissals in your product category can surface active enforcement campaigns before they escalate.
Pizza v Target — key questions answered
Pizza Pack asserted three patents: utility patents US11738935B1 and US11661260B1, and design patent USD1034109S. All three relate to a pizza storage container product and associated trade dress. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in October 2024.
The plaintiff, Pizza Pack, LLC, filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against Target. This is typically chosen when parties have reached a resolution — though the specific commercial terms are not reflected in the public record — or when the plaintiff elects to exit without retaining the option to refile.
No. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice is not an invalidity ruling. Patents US11738935B1, USD1034109S, and US11661260B1 remain issued, in force, and enforceable against third parties. The dismissal only affects Pizza Pack’s ability to bring these specific claims against Target Corp. — it has no bearing on the patents’ enforceability against any other party.
Pizza Pack was represented by attorneys Mark S. Hubert and Stephen P. McCarthy of the law firms Hitt Hiller Monfils Williams LLP and Mark S. Hubert PC, both Portland-based firms. No defendant counsel for Target is listed on the public docket, which is consistent with the case having resolved before Target formally appeared and engaged litigation counsel of record.
The dismissal order directed each party to bear its own costs and fees. This means neither party received a court-ordered fee award. Under U.S. patent law, fee-shifting is available in exceptional cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but no such determination was made here. Each party simply absorbs its own litigation expenses — a common arrangement in negotiated or early-stage exits where no merits ruling is issued.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.