Socket Solutions v. Walmart: Voluntary Dismissal After 46 Days
Socket Solutions, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Walmart, Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois asserting US9509080B1, covering outlet cover and power strip products. The case closed just 46 days after filing, with plaintiff opting for voluntary dismissal before Walmart filed any substantive response.
Outlet cover patent claim against Walmart ends before first response
On November 3, 2023, Socket Solutions, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Walmart, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:23-cv-15647), presided over by Judge Joan B. Gottschall. The action asserted US9509080B1, a patent covering outlet cover and power strip products, alleging that Walmart's product offerings infringed that patent.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order states that, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff dismissed the action against Walmart without prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs. Walmart had not filed an answer to the complaint or a motion for summary judgment before the dismissal was filed.
A 46-day lifespan — from filing to closure — is notably short and suggests the dismissal was filed very early in the litigation lifecycle, before any substantive engagement by the defendant. Whether the decision to dismiss reflects a strategic reassessment, a pre-litigation resolution, or some other factor is not disclosed in the available public record. The specific terms, if any, underlying the decision to dismiss are not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 46 days
46 days — case resolved before Walmart filed an answer or dispositive motion
US9509080B1 — outlet cover and power strip safety technology
Any retailer, manufacturer, or product developer working with outlet cover or power strip products should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against US9509080B1. The patent has now been asserted in federal litigation against one of the world's largest retailers. Because the case was dismissed without prejudice and without any merits ruling, the patent's enforceability and claim scope remain entirely unresolved — leaving a material gap for companies in this product category.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming Socket Solutions acted unilaterally before any substantive response from Walmart. The order states the dismissal is without prejudice and that each party bears its own costs. No merits finding — on infringement, validity, or claim scope — was reached. US9509080B1 remains unlitigated and the specific circumstances driving the dismissal decision are not disclosed in the available record.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff's unilateral exit right
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Walmart had not filed either, Socket Solutions exercised this right unilaterally. The dismissal was self-executing upon filing.
Pre-answer dismissalWithout prejudice: refiling remains possible — but the record warrants a note
The docket order expressly states the dismissal is without prejudice, meaning Socket Solutions retains the right to refile the infringement claim. However, the recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying with or without prejudice. Readers should note this distinction; the public record does not reconcile the two characterisations.
Refiling not barredWalmart exits without any liability finding or admission
Because the case was dismissed before Walmart filed a substantive response, there is no court ruling on infringement, validity, or any other merits issue. Walmart incurs no liability and makes no admission. However, because the dismissal is stated as without prejudice, it is not a final resolution of Socket Solutions' underlying patent rights against Walmart.
No merits adjudicationUS9509080B1 remains live — enforcement risk persists for the sector
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves US9509080B1 fully intact and unlitigated on the merits. Retailers and manufacturers of outlet cover and power strip products who may be in the same position as Walmart should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk. No invalidity determination has been made, and the specific basis for resolving this particular dispute is not disclosed in the available record.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Socket Solutions, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Walmart, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward H. Rice | Attorney | Counsel for Socket Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward L. Bishop | Attorney | Counsel for Socket Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Joseph Jagoda | Attorney | Counsel for Socket Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marina N. Saito | Attorney | Counsel for Socket Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd | Law Firm | Representing Socket Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office of Edward H Rice LLC | Law Firm | Representing Socket Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeanne M. Gills | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Foley & Lardner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Joan B. Gottschall | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the outlet cover and electrical safety products space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Socket Solutions v. Walmart and the broader outlet cover and power strip IP landscape.
Socket Solutions' patent holdings beyond US9509080B1
US9509080B1 may be one asset within a broader Socket Solutions portfolio covering electrical safety hardware. Mapping the assignee's full filing history — including continuations, divisionals, and related applications — can reveal the scope of their IP position and whether additional claims cover adjacent outlet or power strip product configurations.
Assignee filing activityFiling trends in outlet cover and power strip safety technology
The outlet cover and power strip category has seen continued innovation in child safety, surge protection, and smart home integration. Understanding the filing density and key assignees in this technology cluster helps product teams identify crowded claim spaces and areas where differentiated designs may avoid existing IP.
Landscape filing trendsWalmart's IP and sourcing position in electrical safety hardware
As a major retailer and private-label product developer, Walmart's patent activity and supplier relationships in the electrical safety hardware space are worth tracking. Understanding whether Walmart holds design-arounds or has licensed relevant technology can inform competitive and FTO strategies for suppliers in this category.
Retailer IP positioningAdjacent innovation near outlet cover and smart power delivery
The intersection of traditional outlet cover safety features and emerging smart home power delivery — USB-C integration, IoT-enabled surge protection, tamper-resistant designs — represents potential white space adjacent to US9509080B1's claimed territory. Teams exploring next-generation electrical safety products may find less-crowded filing lanes in these directions.
Smart safety white spaceSimilar patent cases: outlet cover and electrical safety product litigation
Explore related patent infringement actions involving outlet cover, power strip, and electrical safety products filed in Illinois and comparable U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the electrical safety products IP landscape
A 46-day lifecycle and pre-answer exit raises questions about enforcement strategy and the durability of US9509080B1 as an assertion vehicle.
Pre-answer dismissals signal enforcement posture worth monitoring
When a plaintiff dismisses before any defendant response, it typically suggests an early strategic decision — whether a pre-litigation resolution, a reassessment of claim strength, or a pivot to a different target. For companies in the outlet cover and power strip space, monitoring Socket Solutions' subsequent filing activity is prudent.
US9509080B1 is unlitigated on the merits — FTO gap remains open
No court has ruled on the validity or scope of US9509080B1. Retailers and product teams sourcing or developing outlet cover and power strip products should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent, particularly given the absence of any invalidating finding in this case.
Socket v Walmart — key questions answered
Socket Solutions, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Walmart, Inc. on November 3, 2023, in the Northern District of Illinois asserting US9509080B1 covering outlet cover and power strip products. The case was voluntarily dismissed on December 19, 2023 — 46 days after filing — before Walmart filed an answer or any dispositive motion. Each party bears its own costs.
Socket Solutions asserted US9509080B1 (application number US15/099559), a patent covering outlet cover and power strip products. No court ruled on the patent's validity or claim scope in this case, and the patent remains unlitigated on the merits following the voluntary dismissal.
The docket order states the dismissal is without prejudice, meaning Socket Solutions retains the right to refile the infringement claim. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying prejudice status. The specific circumstances driving the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record.
Based on the docket order, which states dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), refiling is not barred by this disposition. However, strategic, contractual, or other considerations not reflected in the public record may affect whether or when a refiled action would be pursued. The specific terms of any underlying arrangement are not disclosed.
A 46-day lifespan from filing to closure, with dismissal before Walmart served any substantive response, is consistent with a very early strategic decision by the plaintiff. Whether this reflects a pre-litigation resolution, a reassessment of the merits, or another factor is not disclosed in the available public record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.