Stache Products v. Green Brothers Wholesale: Default Judgment on RIG IN ONE Patents
Stache Products, LLC sued Green Brothers Wholesale Inc. in the Middle District of Florida asserting four patents covering its RIG IN ONE oral vaporizer. The case closed by default judgment after 566 days, with the court restricting use of Stache’s RIG IN ONE trademark to oral vaporizer-related commerce.
Four-patent vaporizer case ends in default after defendant fails to appear
Stache Products, LLC filed this infringement action on 21 May 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Green Brothers Wholesale Inc. The complaint asserted four patents — US10786006B2, US11497244B2, USD0872933S, and US11497252B2 — all covering aspects of the RIG IN ONE oral vaporizer product, including utility and ornamental design rights.
The case closed on 8 December 2025 by default judgment, meaning Green Brothers Wholesale failed to respond or appear in the proceedings. The judgment clarifies that restrictions on use of Stache’s RIG IN ONE trademark apply solely to uses in connection with oral vaporizers, and directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the file.
At 566 days, the timeline likely reflects the procedural steps required to obtain default — including service, notice, and motion practice — before the court was satisfied to enter judgment. The public record does not disclose whether any damages were awarded or whether an injunction was issued beyond the trademark use restriction noted in the judgment order.
Filing to Default Judgment in 566 days
566 days — longer than the median district court IP default resolution
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: defendant’s failure to appear decides the case
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to respond to a complaint or otherwise participate in litigation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, the court may enter judgment in the plaintiff’s favour on the pleaded claims. Here, Green Brothers Wholesale’s non-appearance allowed Stache to obtain judgment without a merits trial. The judgment’s scope — including trademark and patent relief — is shaped by what Stache pleaded and proved by default.
FRCP Rule 55 defaultStache secures judgment protecting RIG IN ONE brand and IP
Stache Products obtained a court-entered judgment enforcing its rights in the RIG IN ONE product. The judgment includes a restriction on the defendant’s use of the RIG IN ONE trademark in connection with oral vaporizers, consistent with Stache’s pleaded claims. This outcome strengthens Stache’s ability to pursue enforcement against other potential infringers, as the patents were not challenged on validity or scope.
IP enforced by defaultGreen Brothers bound by judgment it never contested
Because Green Brothers Wholesale did not appear, it has no appellate record to rely on and faces binding restrictions on its commercial activity. Defendants who receive default judgments may move to vacate under FRCP 60(b) if they can show excusable neglect or a meritorious defence, but the burden is significant. The public record does not disclose whether any such motion was filed.
Binding without appeal recordUncontested patent rights signal risk for the vaporizer wholesale market
Because Green Brothers did not contest validity or scope, Stache’s four patents emerge from this litigation with no adverse findings. Wholesalers and distributors of oral vaporizer products should treat these patents as live enforcement risks. The default also signals that Stache Products is willing to litigate to judgment rather than settle, which may influence future licensing negotiations in the sector.
Enforcement precedent establishedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Stache Products, LLC | Company | Oral vaporizer manufacturer and brand owner — holder of US10786006B2 and three further RIG IN ONE patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Green Brothers Wholesale Inc. | Company | Green Brothers Wholesale Inc. — wholesale distributor, failed to appear or contest the litigationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joel B. Rothman | Attorney | Counsel for Stache Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Layla Nguyen | Attorney | Counsel for Stache Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sriplaw, PA | Law Firm | Representing Stache Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The judgment excerpt confirms the court restricted use of the RIG IN ONE trademark specifically to oral vaporizer commerce, suggesting the pleaded claims were accepted as framed by Stache. In a default judgment, the court does not conduct a merits trial but must satisfy itself that the complaint’s factual allegations, taken as true, support the relief granted. The directive to close the file and terminate pending motions indicates a clean termination with no remaining issues flagged for further proceedings.
US10786006B2 — RIG IN ONE oral vaporizer utility and design patent portfolio
The four asserted patents — US10786006B2, US11497244B2, USD0872933S, and US11497252B2 — collectively cover utility and ornamental design aspects of the RIG IN ONE product, an all-in-one portable oral vaporizer. The utility patents (application numbers 16/686339, 16/902333, and 17/392466) protect functional innovations in vaporizer construction and use, while the design patent (USD0872933S, application 29/666277) protects the product’s distinctive visual appearance.
Together, these four patents form a layered IP barrier around a single consumer product. This portfolio strategy — combining utility protection with ornamental design rights — is commercially significant in the vaporizer hardware market, where product aesthetics and functional differentiation both drive purchasing decisions. Competitors must design around both the functional claims and the protected visual form factor to avoid exposure.
Should you run an FTO against US10786006B2 and the RIG IN ONE portfolio?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing all-in-one oral vaporizer products in the U.S. market should treat this four-patent portfolio as an active clearance requirement. The RIG IN ONE patents cover both how the device works and how it looks — meaning that neither functional redesign alone nor aesthetic changes alone may be sufficient to clear all four rights.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s features against the claim scope of US10786006B2, US11497244B2, US11497252B2, and USD0872933S simultaneously. Because none of these patents faced a validity challenge in this litigation, their claims are untested — making proactive FTO analysis essential before commercial launch or distribution agreements in the oral vaporizer category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10786006B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar oral vaporizer and consumer hardware patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving multi-patent assertion over portable vaporizer hardware in U.S. district courts, including default judgment outcomes and design patent enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the oral vaporizer IP landscape
Stache’s willingness to litigate four patents to default judgment raises the enforcement stakes across the vaporizer wholesale channel.
Default judgments leave patents unchallenged — a key risk for distributors
When a defendant defaults, patent validity and claim scope go untested. Wholesalers distributing competing oral vaporizer products cannot rely on this case to limit Stache’s patent scope. Each of the four asserted patents — utility and design — remains fully enforceable with no adverse claim construction on record.
Multi-patent assertion bundles amplify enforcement leverage
Asserting utility patents alongside a design patent (USD0872933S) and multiple utility patents covering the same product creates overlapping IP barriers. Competitors seeking to design around must address all four patents simultaneously. This bundling strategy is increasingly common in consumer hardware and vaporizer product categories.
Stache v Green — key questions answered
Stache Products asserted four patents: US10786006B2, US11497244B2, USD0872933S (a design patent), and US11497252B2. All four relate to the RIG IN ONE oral vaporizer product, covering utility innovations and ornamental design features.
The case was resolved by default judgment entered on 8 December 2025. Green Brothers Wholesale failed to appear or respond. The judgment restricted use of the RIG IN ONE trademark to oral vaporizer-related commerce and directed the clerk to close the file.
A default judgment means the defendant did not contest validity, claim scope, or infringement. The four asserted patents are therefore unaffected by any adverse ruling and remain fully enforceable. No claim construction, invalidity finding, or non-infringement determination was made on the record.
No. A default judgment binds only the named defendant, Green Brothers Wholesale Inc. It does not create binding precedent on infringement or validity for third parties. However, the patents remain unchallenged, which may influence licensing negotiations and enforcement strategy against other potential infringers.
Including a design patent alongside utility patents creates overlapping IP coverage over both the functional and visual aspects of the RIG IN ONE product. Competitors must address all four patents to achieve freedom to operate — functional redesign alone may not clear the ornamental design protection, and vice versa.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.