Reiley v. Saldana: Container Lid Patent Suit Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice
Pro se plaintiff Adrian Reiley filed suit against Santino Saldana in the Southern District of California asserting three patents covering specialized container lids with automatic air-exchange (auto-burping) mechanisms and dry-erase labeling features. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice 146 days after filing, before the defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment.
Pro Se Container Lid Patent Suit Exits Court Before First Answer
On January 15, 2025, Adrian Reiley — proceeding pro se alongside co-plaintiff Nadiah Reiley — filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Santino Saldana. The complaint asserted three patents: US10723535B2, US11230414B2, and US11814218B2, all directed at specialized container lids incorporating an automatic air-exchange (auto-burping) mechanism and a dry-erase labeling feature.
On June 10, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because the defendant had not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment at the time of dismissal, the plaintiffs were entitled to dismiss as of right — no court order was required. A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiffs retain the ability to refile the same claims against the same defendant in the future.
The 146-day lifespan of the case — ending before any substantive responsive pleading — suggests the dispute may have been resolved informally between the parties, or that the plaintiffs reconsidered their litigation strategy. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement, license, or cease-and-desist agreement accompanied the dismissal. The without-prejudice nature of the termination leaves the door open for renewed enforcement activity against Saldana or others.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 146 days
146 days — case closed before defendant filed any responsive pleading
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court order needed
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Saldana had done neither, the Reileys could — and did — exit the case unilaterally. The dismissal carries no judicial findings on the merits of the patent claims.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice confirmed — but the distinction matters
The notice expressly states dismissal is without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs may refile the same patent claims against Saldana in the future. A with-prejudice dismissal would permanently bar refiling. Here, the public record is clear: the Reileys chose without prejudice, preserving all enforcement options. Defendants facing a without-prejudice exit should treat the matter as unresolved rather than concluded.
Refiling remains possibleSaldana exits without a judgment — but exposure persists
Santino Saldana faces no adverse judgment, injunction, or damages award from this proceeding. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, the three asserted container lid patents remain enforceable and the same infringement claims could be revived. Saldana — and any similarly situated parties — should monitor the patent portfolio for future enforcement activity.
No judgment; risk not eliminatedThree active container lid patents remain a live enforcement risk
The voluntary exit does not invalidate or limit US10723535B2, US11230414B2, or US11814218B2. Competitors and commercial manufacturers of auto-burping or dry-erase-labeled container lids should treat this case as a signal of active patent enforcement intent. The without-prejudice posture and pro se filing approach suggest a low-cost, targeted enforcement strategy that could be repeated against multiple parties.
Portfolio enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Adrian Reiley | Individual | Pro se inventor — holder of US10723535B2, US11230414B2, and US11814218B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Santino Saldana | Individual | Individual defendant in specialized container lid patent infringement actionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adrian Reiley | Attorney | Counsel for Adrian ReileySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The voluntary dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly records that the defendant had filed neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment. This procedural framing is significant: it confirms the dismissal required no judicial approval and carries no res judicata effect. The without-prejudice designation means the three asserted patents — US10723535B2, US11230414B2, and US11814218B2 — remain fully actionable against Saldana or any third party. No findings on claim validity, infringement, or damages were made.
US10723535B2, US11230414B2 & US11814218B2 — Auto-Burping Container Lid Patents
The three asserted patents — US10723535B2 (App. No. 15/860591), US11230414B2 (App. No. 16/904406), and US11814218B2 (App. No. 17/584180) — cover specialized container lids incorporating an automatic air-exchange mechanism (commonly described as an auto-burping function) and a dry-erase labeling surface. The sequential application numbers suggest a continuation filing strategy, with each patent potentially refining or broadening the scope of protected features across the same core technology platform.
For the kitchenware, food-storage, and specialty container industries, this three-patent family represents a targeted IP position on a niche but commercially meaningful product feature set. Auto-burping mechanisms (which equalize pressure to preserve food freshness) and integrated dry-erase labels (enabling reusable identification of contents) are increasingly common in premium consumer and commercial food-storage products. A continuation family of this structure typically means the patent holder can pursue infringement across multiple product variations, making freedom-to-operate analysis critical for any manufacturer or distributor active in this segment.
Should you run an FTO against US10723535B2, US11230414B2, and US11814218B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing container lids with automatic air-exchange or pressure-equalization features — or integrated dry-erase labeling surfaces — should conduct a freedom-to-operate review against this three-patent family before commercializing. The continuation structure means claims may vary in scope across the three patents, and a design-around that clears one may not clear the others. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case confirms the patents remain live enforcement tools.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of US10723535B2, US11230414B2, and US11814218B2, identify related continuations or divisionals, and flag prior art relevant to validity challenges. For R&D and product teams developing food-storage or kitchen-container products, Eureka can generate a targeted landscape report to identify design freedom and litigation risk before a product reaches market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10723535B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Container & Kitchenware IP Disputes in Federal District Courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving consumer product and container technology patents filed in U.S. district courts, including the Southern District of California.
What this case signals for the specialty container and kitchenware IP landscape
A voluntarily dismissed pro se suit asserting three container lid patents is a low-cost enforcement signal worth tracking for manufacturers and distributors.
Without-prejudice exits preserve all future enforcement options
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses without prejudice before the defendant answers, the legal slate is wiped clean procedurally — but the underlying patents remain fully enforceable. Any party selling products that could read on auto-burping or dry-erase container lid claims should not treat this dismissal as a green light to proceed without an FTO review.
Pro se patent litigation is increasingly used as a targeted enforcement tool
Filing pro se eliminates attorney-cost barriers to initiating litigation. The pattern here — filing, waiting, then dismissing before any answer — is consistent with a demand-letter-backed strategy where the lawsuit itself is the pressure mechanism. IP teams should take pro se patent filings seriously regardless of the absence of law-firm involvement.
Reiley v Santino — key questions answered
Adrian and Nadiah Reiley filed a pro se patent infringement suit against Santino Saldana in the Southern District of California on January 15, 2025, asserting three patents covering specialized container lids. On June 10, 2025, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before the defendant had filed an answer or motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiffs asserted three patents: US10723535B2 (App. No. 15/860591), US11230414B2 (App. No. 16/904406), and US11814218B2 (App. No. 17/584180). All three cover specialized container lids with an automatic air-exchange (auto-burping) mechanism and a dry-erase labeling feature, and appear to form a continuation patent family.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice means no judgment was entered against the defendant. Saldana faces no damages award, injunction, or adverse finding. However, the patents remain enforceable and the same claims could be refiled against him in the future. It does not constitute a legal finding that no infringement occurred.
Yes. Because the dismissal was explicitly without prejudice, the Reileys retain the right to refile the same patent infringement claims against Saldana. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff who dismisses before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment may refile, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any applicable refiling rules.
The three asserted patents cover a niche but commercially growing product category: container lids with automatic air-exchange mechanisms that equalize pressure (auto-burping) and integrated dry-erase labeling for reusable content identification. These features appear in premium food-storage products for both consumer and commercial markets. Manufacturers and distributors in this space should assess freedom-to-operate against this patent family.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.