Plus EV Holdings v. NewFlora LLC: Design Patent Dispute Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
Plus EV Holdings, Inc. brought a design patent infringement action against NewFlora LLC in the Southern District of California, asserting USD1029286S over competing pelvic floor wand products. The parties jointly moved to dismiss with prejudice after 207 days, suggesting a negotiated resolution outside the public record.
Design patent fight over pelvic wand products ends quietly in S.D. Cal.
Filed August 1, 2024 in the Southern District of California, this infringement action pits Plus EV Holdings, Inc. — the apparent rights holder of design patent USD1029286S — against NewFlora LLC over two lines of pelvic floor wand and massage therapy products. The accused products include NewFlora’s Pelvic Wand and Vibrating Pelvic Wand, which Plus EV alleged infringed the ornamental design claimed in USD1029286S as embodied in its own Intimate Rose Pelvic Floor Wand product family.
On February 24, 2025, District Judge granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(c). A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes — Plus EV cannot re-assert the same design patent claims against NewFlora for the same accused products in federal court. The joint nature of the motion, filed under the stipulation provision of Rule 41, strongly suggests the parties reached a private settlement or licensing arrangement, though no terms have been disclosed publicly.
Resolution in under seven months is notably fast for patent litigation in California federal courts, where cases routinely run two or more years. The compressed timeline — before any Markman hearing or significant merits briefing on the public docket — suggests either early-stage settlement negotiations or a rapid commercial resolution. What remains unknown is whether NewFlora agreed to a license, agreed to design-around the patent, or obtained some form of cross-license, making the long-term competitive implications difficult to assess from public filings alone.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 207 days
207 days — resolved well under the typical S.D. Cal. patent trial average of 2–3 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice is a final, binding close
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(c), a dismissal with prejudice entered on joint stipulation operates as a final judgment on the merits. No claim concerning USD1029286S against the same accused NewFlora products may be re-filed in federal court. This is the strongest form of voluntary dismissal and typically accompanies a confidential settlement or license.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissalPlus EV forfeits re-filing rights — but likely secured a commercial resolution
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Plus EV Holdings permanently relinquishes the right to re-assert USD1029286S against NewFlora for the same accused products. This concession typically signals that the plaintiff received sufficient commercial consideration — a license, a design-change commitment, or a monetary settlement — to justify closing the case. The absence of a public fee award is consistent with a mutual agreement.
Likely settled or licensedNewFlora escapes an adverse judgment — but faces ongoing design patent risk
NewFlora avoided any public finding of infringement or invalidity ruling on USD1029286S. However, dismissal with prejudice does not mean the patent is invalid — it remains enforceable against third parties and against NewFlora if it launches materially different products. If NewFlora secured a license, that may constrain future product design or impose royalty obligations not visible in the public record.
No merits adjudicationUSD1029286S stays enforceable — pelvic health design IP remains a live risk
The case resolves without any validity determination, leaving USD1029286S fully in force against the broader pelvic health device market. Competitors in the pelvic floor wellness space — particularly those selling wand-style massage tools with similar ornamental designs — should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk. Plus EV’s willingness to litigate and then settle with prejudice suggests a deliberate, commercially-driven IP enforcement strategy.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Plus EV Holdings, Inc. | Company | Intimate Rose pelvic health product brand — holder of design patent USD1029286SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | NewFlora LLC | Company | NewFlora LLC — maker of competing pelvic floor wand and massage therapy devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Nelson Platt | Attorney | Counsel for Plus EV Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Donny Samporna | Attorney | Counsel for Plus EV Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Megan Maureene Needham | Attorney | Counsel for Plus EV Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Haley Guiliano, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Plus EV Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Workman Nydegger | Law Firm | Representing Plus EV Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexandra H. Moss | Attorney | Counsel for NewFlora LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Conner Hutchisson | Attorney | Counsel for NewFlora LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Carstens, Allen & Gourley, LLP | Law Firm | Representing NewFlora LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Public Interest Patent Law Institute | Law Firm | Representing NewFlora LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is procedural rather than substantive — it grants a jointly filed Rule 41 stipulated dismissal, explicitly citing both Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Rule 41(c), which governs counterclaims. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is significant: it forecloses re-litigation of the same claims, functioning as a final judgment for claim-preclusion purposes. No infringement finding, no validity ruling, and no damages assessment appear in the public record. The terse ‘good cause appearing’ language signals the court exercised minimal scrutiny, consistent with routine approval of agreed party dispositions.
USD1029286S — Ornamental design for a pelvic floor massage wand
USD1029286S is a United States design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a pelvic floor massage wand — the specific shape, curvature, and visual form of the device rather than its functional mechanics. Design patents in the US have a term of 15 years from grant and are governed by 35 U.S.C. § 171. The application number is US29/907560, and the patent is asserted in the context of the Intimate Rose Pelvic Floor Wand product line, suggesting it was filed to protect the distinctive visual identity of that product.
In the growing pelvic health and intimate wellness device market, ornamental design differentiation is a key commercial asset. A valid design patent covering a wand-style form factor creates a significant barrier for competitors whose products share a similar silhouette or profile, even if the underlying mechanisms differ. With the ‘ordinary observer’ test applied at infringement, even minor aesthetic similarities can establish a viable claim — making USD1029286S a commercially potent enforcement tool against visually comparable products from brands like NewFlora.
Should your pelvic health device team run an FTO against USD1029286S?
Any company developing or commercialising pelvic floor wands, intimate massage tools, or adjacent personal wellness devices with a wand-style form factor should treat USD1029286S as a live risk. Design patent infringement does not require copying — it requires only that an ordinary observer would find the accused product substantially similar in overall visual impression. Products with similar curvature, handle geometry, or tip design are potentially exposed, regardless of brand positioning or intended use.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD1029286S against your product design files, identify existing design-around strategies in the pelvic health device space, and surface related design patent families that Plus EV may be prosecuting. Running a design patent FTO before product launch — rather than after a cease-and-desist — is significantly less costly and avoids the leverage dynamics visible in this S.D. Cal. case.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1029286S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in the personal wellness device space
Cases involving design patent enforcement over personal wellness and intimate health devices in U.S. district courts, with comparable ornamental design claims and fast-track resolution patterns.
What this case signals for the pelvic health device IP landscape
A fast, prejudicial close in S.D. Cal. signals active design patent enforcement in the pelvic wellness category.
Design patents are enforceable weapons in wellness device markets
USD1029286S covers ornamental design — not function. Design patent infringement turns on the ‘ordinary observer’ test, making even aesthetically similar competing products vulnerable. Companies in the pelvic health, intimate wellness, and personal care device space should audit competitor design portfolios before product launch.
Fast resolution under 7 months suggests pre-trial leverage was decisive
The case closed before any Markman hearing or substantive merits ruling. In design patent cases, the threat of a preliminary injunction — which is easier to obtain given the visual nature of design claims — often accelerates settlement. Early-stage defendants in similar cases should obtain FTO opinions promptly.
Plus v NewFlora — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice in this case means the action was terminated permanently. Plus EV Holdings cannot re-file the same design patent infringement claims — based on USD1029286S against the same NewFlora pelvic wand products — in any federal court. It functions as a final judgment on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes, even though no merits ruling was actually issued.
USD1029286S covers the ornamental design of a pelvic floor massage wand, as embodied in Plus EV’s Intimate Rose Pelvic Floor Wand product line. The patent protects the visual appearance — shape, curvature, and form — rather than functional features. The accused NewFlora products were the NewFlora Pelvic Wand and NewFlora Vibrating Pelvic Wand.
No settlement has been publicly disclosed. However, the joint motion to dismiss with prejudice — filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — is strongly consistent with a private resolution, such as a confidential license, royalty agreement, or design-change commitment by NewFlora. The court’s order does not disclose any settlement terms.
The case lasted 207 days, filed August 1, 2024 and closed February 24, 2025. This is notably fast for patent litigation in the Southern District of California, where cases typically run two or more years. The swift resolution — before any Markman hearing — suggests early settlement discussions or significant pre-trial commercial leverage.
Yes. Dismissal with prejudice only bars Plus EV from re-suing NewFlora on the same claims for the same products. It does not invalidate USD1029286S. The patent remains fully enforceable against any other manufacturer or seller of pelvic floor wand products whose designs are substantially similar in overall visual impression to the patented ornamental design.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.