Reaction Labs v. Liquipel: Magnetic USB-C Cable Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Reaction Labs LLC, doing business as Lup, filed a patent infringement action against Liquipel LLC in the Western District of Texas alleging infringement of US11972881B1 — a patent covering magnetic USB-C and USB-A cable connectors. The case closed after 174 days via voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1), with no answer ever filed by the defendant.
Magnetic connector patent suit exits W.D. Tex. before first responsive pleading
On March 27, 2025, Reaction Labs LLC — a company also known as Lup — filed suit against Liquipel LLC in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 1:25-cv-00458) before Judge Robert Pitman. The complaint asserted infringement of US11972881B1, which covers magnetic USB-C and USB-A cable connector technology, directed specifically at Liquipel’s magnetic 4 ft and 6 ft USB-C cables with USB-C connector and its magnetic USB-A to USB-C cable variants.
The case closed on September 17, 2025, when Reaction Labs filed a voluntary notice of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Critically, Liquipel had not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment at the time of dismissal, meaning Reaction Labs was entitled to dismiss as of right — no court order was required. The dismissal was expressly stated to be without prejudice, preserving Reaction Labs’ right to refile the same claims.
The 174-day lifespan without a single responsive pleading from Liquipel is consistent with either an early-stage settlement or licensing negotiation that resolved the commercial dispute before formal litigation escalated. The public record does not reveal whether any licence, payment, or other agreement was reached. What remains unknown is whether Liquipel’s silence reflected negotiation, strategic delay, or resource constraints — and whether Reaction Labs intends to refile if negotiations break down.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 174 days
174 days — resolved before defendant filed any responsive pleading
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1): 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 serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Liquipel filed neither, Reaction Labs could — and did — dismiss unilaterally. The court plays no gatekeeping role at this stage, making the dismissal immediate and self-executing upon filing.
Procedural dismissalDismissed without prejudice — but the distinction matters
The notice expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning the claims are not extinguished. Reaction Labs retains the right to refile the same infringement action against Liquipel at a later date. A dismissal with prejudice would have permanently barred refiling. The public record does not reveal why the dismissal was without prejudice — it may reflect an ongoing commercial negotiation, a licensing process, or a strategic pause rather than a definitive resolution.
Refiling remains possibleReaction Labs preserves all claims and future leverage
By dismissing without prejudice, Reaction Labs surrenders nothing substantively. US11972881B1 remains in force, the infringement claims are preserved, and the plaintiff can refile in any competent court. The move is consistent with a plaintiff who has achieved a commercial objective — such as a licence or cease-and-desist compliance — without needing a full merits adjudication. The patent’s enforceability is entirely unaffected by this dismissal.
Patent remains enforceableLiquipel exits without a merits ruling — but risk persists
Liquipel avoided a litigated outcome, but the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means it cannot treat this case as a full release. If Liquipel continues selling the accused magnetic USB cable products without a licence or design-around, it remains exposed to a refiled action. Without an answer on record, Liquipel also made no public assertions about invalidity or non-infringement, leaving its defensive position undisclosed.
Future exposure not eliminatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Reaction Labs LLC | Company | Magnetic connector IP company (d/b/a Lup) — holder of US11972881B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Liquipel, LLC | Company | Liquipel LLC — consumer electronics accessories brand offering magnetic USB cablesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel Scardino | Attorney | Counsel for Reaction Labs LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Henning Schmidt | Attorney | Counsel for Reaction Labs LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Scardino LLP | Law Firm | Representing Reaction Labs LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Reaction Labs LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert Pitman | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1) and expressly conditions the exit on the absence of any answer or summary judgment motion by Liquipel — the precise statutory trigger for a right-to-dismiss without court involvement. The without-prejudice designation is the operative commercial term: it confirms that no merits adjudication occurred, the patent’s validity was never tested in this proceeding, and Reaction Labs retains full freedom to reinitiate enforcement. For Liquipel, the absence of any stipulated release or covenant not to sue on the record means its exposure to US11972881B1 persists.
US11972881B1 — Magnetic USB-C and USB-A Cable Connector Technology
US11972881B1 (application no. US18/339272) is a granted US utility patent protecting magnetic connector technology applied to USB-C and USB-A cable assemblies — specifically configurations in 4 ft and 6 ft lengths. Magnetic detachable connectors represent a functional improvement over standard friction-fit USB connections, offering one-handed attachment, reduced port wear, and safer disconnect under tension. The patent’s grant as a B1 publication indicates it proceeded to allowance without a reissue or reexamination.
For the consumer electronics accessories sector, magnetic USB connector patents occupy a commercially significant niche. Products in this category are sold across major e-commerce platforms at accessible price points, making licensing disputes highly practical rather than purely academic. Liquipel — known primarily for its nano-coating waterproofing technology — appears to have expanded into magnetic cable accessories, placing it squarely within the scope of Reaction Labs’ enforcement campaign. Competitors offering similar magnetic USB-C or USB-A products should treat this patent as an active enforcement instrument.
Should your magnetic USB cable products be cleared against US11972881B1?
Any company designing, importing, or selling magnetic USB-C or USB-A connector cables in the US market should treat US11972881B1 as a live clearance risk. The patent has already been asserted against a named commercial competitor, and the without-prejudice dismissal confirms it remains fully enforceable. Consumer electronics accessory brands, OEM cable manufacturers, and e-commerce retailers sourcing magnetic cable products from third-party suppliers face the greatest exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map their cable connector designs against the claim scope of US11972881B1 rapidly. Eureka can identify prior art that may support an invalidity argument, flag claim elements most likely to read on specific product configurations, and surface related patents in the magnetic connector space that may require separate clearance — delivering a defensible FTO analysis without weeks of manual searching.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11972881B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Magnetic Connector & USB Cable Patent Cases in US District Courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving magnetic USB and connector technology filed in US district courts, including the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the magnetic connector IP landscape
A pre-answer dismissal without prejudice in a connector patent case often signals negotiation over litigation — here is what to watch.
Pre-answer dismissals frequently signal licensing activity, not retreat
When a plaintiff dismisses without prejudice before the defendant even answers, the most commercially rational explanation is that the parties reached a private agreement — licence, royalty, or product modification. Competitors in the magnetic connector accessories market should treat this as a signal that US11972881B1 is being actively enforced, not abandoned.
US11972881B1 remains a live enforcement risk for USB cable accessory makers
The patent survived this litigation cycle fully intact. Any company selling magnetic USB-C or USB-A connector cables — particularly 4 ft and 6 ft configurations — should review their products against US11972881B1’s claims. The Western District of Texas remains a plaintiff-preferred venue for future filings.
Reaction v Liquipel — key questions answered
Reaction Labs LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Liquipel LLC in the Western District of Texas on March 27, 2025 over US11972881B1, covering magnetic USB-C and USB-A cables. Liquipel never filed an answer. On September 17, 2025, Reaction Labs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), ending the action after 174 days with no merits ruling.
A dismissal without prejudice means the claims are not permanently extinguished. Reaction Labs retains the legal right to refile its infringement claims against Liquipel based on US11972881B1 at a later date. The patent itself is unaffected. This stands in contrast to a dismissal with prejudice, which would have permanently barred Reaction Labs from bringing the same claims again.
The patent at issue is US11972881B1 (application no. US18/339272), a granted US utility patent covering magnetic cable connector technology applied to USB-C and USB-A cables in 4 ft and 6 ft configurations. The accused products were Liquipel’s magnetic USB-C cables with USB-C connector and its magnetic USB-A cables with USB-C connector.
The public record does not reveal the specific reason. However, a voluntary dismissal without prejudice before any responsive pleading is consistent with the parties reaching a private commercial resolution — such as a licensing agreement, royalty arrangement, or product withdrawal — without needing a court judgment. It may also reflect strategic timing. No settlement terms are publicly available.
Yes. Because the dismissal is without prejudice and Liquipel never filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, Reaction Labs may refile the same infringement claims based on US11972881B1 against Liquipel in any court of competent jurisdiction. However, practitioners should note the ‘two-dismissal rule’ under Rule 41(a)(1)(B): if Reaction Labs previously dismissed the same claim against Liquipel in an earlier action, this second dismissal would operate as one with prejudice.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.