Solo Brands vs. City Bonfires: Smokeless Fire Pit Patent Dispute Settles
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Solo Brands, LLC v. City Bonfires, LLC |
| Case Number | 8:24-cv-03413 |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland |
| Duration | Nov 2024 – Jan 2026 409 days (approx 13.5 months) |
| Outcome | Settled – No Public Damages |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | City Bonfires’ tabletop and non-tabletop smokeless fire pits, Coleman® Cityscapes™ smokeless fire pit models (5″, 10″, 15″, 20″, and 25″ variants). |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Corporate parent of Solo Stove, a premium outdoor products brand known for its signature smokeless fire pit designs with a broad IP portfolio.
🛡️ Defendant
Manufacturer of portable fire pit products, including tabletop smokeless models, competing in the outdoor lifestyle equipment market.
Patents at Issue
This dispute centered on three patents covering smokeless fire pit technology and design, vital for competitive differentiation in the outdoor lifestyle market. These patents protect both functional innovations and distinctive visual elements.
- • US11703227B2 — Utility patent covering smokeless fire pit technology
- • USD0923163S — Design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a fire pit
- • US11391465B1 — Utility patent related to fire pit construction or airflow mechanics
Developing a new outdoor product?
Check if your smokeless fire pit design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case was **resolved by settlement**, encompassing all claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims. Pursuant to Local Rule 111 of the District of Maryland, the court ordered the matter closed upon notification by the parties. No damages figure was publicly disclosed, and no injunctive relief order appears in the case record, as is typical in confidential settlement resolutions.
Verdict Cause Analysis
The action was brought as a **patent infringement claim** under 35 U.S.C. The assertion of both utility patents (covering functional elements such as airflow design) and a design patent (covering ornamental appearance) created a multi-front enforcement strategy. Because the case settled before any published claim construction order or summary judgment ruling, the public record does not reveal how the court would have interpreted the asserted claims.
However, the inclusion of Coleman-branded products signals that Solo Brands was prepared to pursue a broad enforcement campaign — a strategic posture that often accelerates settlement by maximizing defendant exposure.
Legal Significance
While the settlement limits the precedential value of this specific case, several legally significant elements merit attention:
- **Design + Utility Patent Bundling:** Asserting both utility and design patents against the same product line increases litigation leverage and complicates defendant design-around efforts. This strategy is increasingly common in consumer product patent litigation.
- **Multi-Product Scope:** Naming multiple Coleman Cityscapes variants alongside City Bonfires’ own products broadens potential damages exposure and can draw in upstream or downstream commercial partners.
- **Maryland Venue:** While not a historically dominant patent venue, Maryland District Court handles complex commercial IP disputes, and practitioners should monitor docket trends there as plaintiffs diversify venue selection.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in smokeless fire pit design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View the patent landscape for smokeless fire pits
- Identify key innovators and patent trends
- Understand competitive IP strategies
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Smokeless fire pit design
3 Patents Asserted
Utility and Design Patents
Early Settlement
Reduced litigation costs
✅ Key Takeaways
Multi-patent complaints combining utility and design patents are an effective enforcement strategy in consumer product categories.
Search related case law →Maryland District Court is an emerging venue worth monitoring for IP filings, demonstrating broader venue selection trends.
Explore court data →Settlements without disclosed damages remain the most common resolution in first-instance patent litigation — early case valuation is essential.
Understand settlement dynamics →The noted dual-representation by Gary C. Adler warrants independent professional responsibility review by practitioners.
Review attorney records →Frequently Asked Questions
Three patents: utility patents US11703227B2 and US11391465B1, and design patent USD0923163S, all relating to smokeless fire pit technology and design.
The case settled, with all claims resolved by agreement of the parties. No damages or injunctive relief were publicly disclosed.
While non-precedential due to settlement, it signals active IP enforcement in the smokeless fire pit space and establishes that both design and utility patent claims are viable assertion tools in this product category.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- USPTO Patent Database
- PACER Case Lookup – 8:24-cv-03413
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C.
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
- Related: Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.