Rinamo v. Hardware Factory Store OKC: Universal Gripper Patent Dismissed
Three co-plaintiffs — Kim Rinamo, Janne Huovila, and Jorgen Johansson — filed an infringement action against Oklahoma-based Hardware Factory Store OKC, Inc. asserting US10627013B2, a patent covering a universal gripper. The case closed after just 130 days when plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before the defendant had answered.
Early voluntary exit: gripper patent suit ends before defendant responds
On 18 July 2024, plaintiffs Kim Rinamo, Janne Huovila, and Jorgen Johansson filed an infringement action in the Northern District of Oklahoma (Case No. 4:24-cv-00341) against Hardware Factory Store OKC, Inc., asserting US10627013B2 — a patent directed to a universal gripper mechanism. The defendant is a hardware retail operation based in Oklahoma City. The plaintiffs appear to be individual inventors or co-assignees of the asserted patent, represented by the Helton Law Firm.
The case closed on 25 November 2024 — just 130 days after filing — when the plaintiffs invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to dismiss the action. That procedural rule permits a plaintiff to dismiss as of right, without a court order, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or moved for summary judgment. The public record confirms neither had occurred, meaning the dismissal was self-executing and required no judicial approval.
The 130-day duration and pre-answer dismissal suggest the plaintiffs may have reassessed the commercial viability of litigation, reached an undisclosed resolution, or encountered obstacles to enforcing the patent against this particular defendant. Because the basis of termination is listed only as ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without specifying prejudice terms, the public record does not confirm whether the plaintiffs retain the right to re-file. What drove the decision — whether licensing discussions, claim scope concerns, or resource considerations — remains unknown from the available record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 130 days
130 days — resolved before defendant’s answer deadline, suggesting early strategic recalibration
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or moved for summary judgment. Here, neither had occurred, making the dismissal self-executing. No judicial approval was required, and no merits ruling was issued. The case closed administratively upon the filing of the notice.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ permanently bars re-filing the same claims. A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to sue again. The Verdict text in this case states ‘dismisses this action without prejudice,’ which suggests the plaintiffs intend to retain re-filing rights. However, the Basis of Termination field records only ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without specifying the prejudice qualifier. Practitioners should verify the filed notice directly for definitive confirmation.
Without prejudice — verify filed noticeHardware Factory Store OKC escapes without a merits ruling
The defendant never filed an answer, meaning no invalidity defences, non-infringement arguments, or counterclaims were entered on the public record. The dismissal carries no findings in the defendant’s favour. However, if the dismissal is confirmed as without prejudice, the defendant remains exposed to a refiled action — potentially in a different venue or after the plaintiffs strengthen their infringement theory.
No merits determinationUS10627013B2 remains enforceable — threat not extinguished
A voluntary dismissal does not invalidate or limit the asserted patent. US10627013B2 remains in force, and the plaintiffs retain enforcement rights. Competitors and retailers operating in the universal gripper product space should note that the patent survived this litigation cycle without any adverse claim construction or validity finding. The case’s swift closure may indicate ongoing licensing discussions or a strategic reset rather than abandonment of enforcement.
Patent remains active and enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kim Rinamo | Individual | Individual patent co-owners — inventors asserting US10627013B2 (universal gripper)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Janne Huovila | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Jorgen Johansson | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hardware Factory Store OKC, Inc. | Company | Hardware Factory Store OKC, Inc. — Oklahoma-based hardware retail operationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Colleen Morris | Attorney | Counsel for Kim RinamoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott Helton | Attorney | Counsel for Kim RinamoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Helton Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Kim RinamoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Edward L. White | Attorney | Counsel for Hardware Factory Store OKC, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Edward L. White PC | Law Firm | Representing Hardware Factory Store OKC, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Oklahoma Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ confirming the plaintiffs retain re-filing rights. Critically, the notice itself confirms the procedural predicate — the defendant had not answered or moved for summary judgment — meaning the dismissal was self-executing. No court order was required and no merits findings were made. This is a clean procedural exit that leaves US10627013B2 fully enforceable and the infringement allegations unresolved on the merits.
US10627013B2 — Universal Gripper Mechanical Device
US10627013B2 is a granted US patent (application number US16/091546) directed to a universal gripper — a mechanical device designed to grip, clamp, or hold objects across a variable range of sizes or configurations. Universal gripper technology sits at the intersection of hand tools, industrial fastening, and hardware accessories. The patent’s granted status means it survived examination and carries a presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
For hardware retailers and tool manufacturers, US10627013B2 represents a potential enforcement vector across a wide product category. Universal or adjustable gripping tools are stocked broadly across hardware retail, industrial supply, and online marketplaces. The fact that the plaintiffs targeted a hardware store — rather than a manufacturer — suggests an enforcement strategy potentially aimed at distribution channels. Companies sourcing, importing, or retailing adjustable gripper products should assess whether their SKUs fall within the patent’s claim scope.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10627013B2?
Any business manufacturing, importing, distributing, or retailing universal or adjustable gripper products should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US10627013B2. The patent has not been invalidated, and its claims have never been construed by a court. The plaintiffs’ willingness to file — and their retention of re-filing rights — suggests active enforcement intent. Hardware retailers, tool wholesalers, and OEM suppliers are all potentially within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product specifications against the claim language of US10627013B2, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and surface related patents in the same inventor or assignee portfolio. A proactive FTO now costs a fraction of the litigation defence costs this case would have generated had it proceeded to the answer stage and beyond.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10627013B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mechanical tool patent cases in US district courts
Cases involving mechanical gripping and hand tool patents in the Northern District of Oklahoma and comparable US district courts — filtered by voluntary dismissal outcome.
What this case signals for the mechanical gripping device IP landscape
A pre-answer dismissal in a hardware patent case rarely signals defeat — it often signals recalibration. Here is what practitioners and product teams should monitor.
Pre-answer dismissals preserve optionality — track refiling windows
When plaintiffs dismiss before an answer under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), they typically retain the right to refile. Parties operating in the universal gripper or mechanical fastening space should monitor US10627013B2 for subsequent enforcement actions, potentially in different districts or against different defendants.
No invalidity record created — patent exits litigation intact
Because no answer or summary judgment motion was filed, no prior art arguments, IPR petitions, or invalidity contentions entered the public record. US10627013B2 has not been stress-tested in adversarial proceedings. Any FTO analysis should treat the patent’s claim scope as unlitigated and therefore potentially broad.
Rinamo v Hardware — key questions answered
The dismissal notice filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) states ‘without prejudice,’ which typically means the plaintiffs retain the right to refile the same claims. However, the Basis of Termination field in the public record lists only ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without specifying the prejudice qualifier. Practitioners should verify the filed notice directly to confirm the operative terms.
US10627013B2 is a granted US patent (application no. US16/091546) directed to a universal gripper — a mechanical device for gripping or clamping objects across variable configurations. It was asserted against Hardware Factory Store OKC, Inc. in the Northern District of Oklahoma. The patent remains in force and has not been subjected to any adverse validity or claim construction ruling.
The public record does not disclose the plaintiffs’ reasons. The pre-answer dismissal is consistent with several scenarios: a confidential licensing or settlement agreement, a reassessment of claim scope or infringement evidence, resource or cost considerations, or a strategic decision to pursue different defendants or venues. The 130-day duration from filing to dismissal suggests the decision was made relatively early in the litigation lifecycle.
If the dismissal is confirmed as without prejudice, the plaintiffs are generally free to refile the same infringement claims — subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any strategic constraints. The defendant received no merits ruling in its favour and no finding of non-infringement or invalidity. A second filing against the same defendant would be permissible, though courts may scrutinise repeated voluntary dismissals.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Case No. 4:24-cv-00341). It is a first-instance district court action. Plaintiffs were represented by the Helton Law Firm (attorneys Colleen Morris and Scott Helton), and the defendant was represented by Edward L. White of Edward L. White PC.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.