Stache Products v. TSJ Distributors: Dab Rig Patent Dispute Settles in 175 Days
Stache Products, LLC filed suit against TSJ Distributors INC in the Central District of California, asserting four patents covering its RIG IN ONE portable dab rig. The parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement after just 175 days, with all proceedings stayed and a stipulated dismissal ordered by September 23, 2024.
Four-Patent Dab Rig Dispute Resolves Quietly Before Any Merits Ruling
On March 21, 2024, Stache Products, LLC filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against TSJ Distributors INC, asserting four intellectual property rights covering its ‘RIG IN ONE’ portable dab rig: utility patents US10786006B2 and US11497244B2, design patent USD0872933S, and utility patent US11497252B2. The complaint alleged that TSJ Distributors’ products infringed these rights covering portable, easy-to-use dab rig technology.
The case settled before any substantive court ruling. On August 22, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement (Doc. 22), prompting the court to stay all proceedings and remove the case from its active docket. The court retained jurisdiction through the Dismissal Date of September 23, 2024, and indicated the matter would be deemed dismissed at that date absent a formal stipulation. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Settled,’ though specific financial or licensing terms have not been disclosed publicly.
Resolution within 175 days is notably swift for a multi-patent infringement action in the Central District of California, suggesting the parties reached an accommodation before significant litigation costs accumulated. The absence of any claim construction briefing or Markman proceedings in the public record is consistent with a commercially negotiated resolution. What drove the specific settlement terms — licensing fees, a cease-and-desist agreement, or product modification — remains unknown from publicly available filings.
Filing to Case Settled in 175 days
175 days — faster than the median C.D. California patent case, suggesting early settlement pressure
Case settled: what the joint notice means for both parties
Joint Notice of Settlement ends litigation before merits adjudication
A Joint Notice of Settlement signals mutual agreement to resolve all claims without a court verdict. Under the court’s order, all proceedings were immediately stayed and the case removed from the active docket. The court set a Dismissal Date of September 23, 2024, after which the matter would be deemed dismissed. No finding of infringement or validity was made, meaning neither party obtained a judicial ruling on the merits.
No merits ruling issuedPublic record is silent on with-prejudice or without-prejudice terms
The Basis of Termination is recorded only as ‘Case Settled.’ The court order requires a Stipulation of Dismissal by September 23, 2024, but does not specify whether dismissal is with or without prejudice. A with-prejudice dismissal bars Stache Products from re-filing the same claims; a without-prejudice dismissal would leave that option open. Until the stipulation is filed and publicly docketed, the precise preclusive effect cannot be confirmed from available records.
Dismissal terms undisclosedStache Products retains patent portfolio with no adverse validity finding
Because the case settled pre-merits, all four asserted patents — US10786006B2, US11497244B2, USD0872933S, and US11497252B2 — remain intact with no judicial determination of invalidity or non-infringement. Stache Products can continue to assert these rights against other potential infringers. Settlement typically suggests the patent holder obtained some commercial relief, though the specific terms are confidential.
Patents unimpairedRapid settlement signals credible patent coverage in the portable dab rig space
TSJ Distributors’ willingness to settle within 175 days, before any claim construction ruling, is consistent with a recognition that the asserted patents posed a credible infringement risk. For competitors and distributors operating in the portable dab rig and cannabis accessories market, this outcome suggests Stache Products’ IP portfolio carries enforcement weight. Companies distributing functionally similar devices should consider conducting freedom-to-operate reviews against the four asserted patents.
Portfolio enforcement validatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Stache Products, LLC | Company | Portable cannabis accessories brand — holder of US10786006B2 and three further dab rig patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | TSJ Distributors INC | Company | TSJ Distributors INC — distributor of cannabis consumption accessories alleged to infringe Stache Products’ RIG IN ONE patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Layla T. Nguyen | Attorney | Counsel for Stache Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Laurence Rollin | Attorney | Counsel for Stache Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sriplaw PA | Law Firm | Representing Stache Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Catherine A Veeneman | Attorney | Counsel for TSJ Distributors INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David N Tarlow | Attorney | Counsel for TSJ Distributors INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason L. Haas | Attorney | Counsel for TSJ Distributors INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ervin, Cohen & Jessup LLP | Law Firm | Representing TSJ Distributors INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s settlement order reflects a purely procedural disposition: the Joint Notice of Settlement triggers an administrative stay and scheduled dismissal with no adjudication of infringement, validity, or damages. The phrasing that the court ‘retains full jurisdiction’ until the Dismissal Date is standard protective language ensuring compliance with settlement terms. Neither party obtained a judgment that could be used offensively in subsequent proceedings, leaving all four asserted patents legally unimpaired and the defendant without a recorded finding of non-infringement.
US10786006B2, US11497244B2, USD0872933S & US11497252B2 — Portable Dab Rig Technology
The four asserted patents collectively protect the design, construction, and functionality of the RIG IN ONE — a portable, self-contained dab rig for consuming cannabis concentrates. US10786006B2 and US11497244B2 cover utility aspects of the device’s construction and concentrate delivery mechanism, while US11497252B2 addresses further usability and portability innovations. Design patent USD0872933S protects the ornamental appearance of the product. The application filing dates span 2019 to 2021, indicating a deliberate, layered prosecution strategy as the product evolved.
Strategically, this portfolio is notable for its breadth: combining utility and design protection creates a moat that is difficult to circumvent through minor engineering changes alone. In the rapidly growing cannabis hardware sector, where product copying is common and margins are tight, portable dab rig patents carry significant commercial weight. Any company manufacturing or distributing functionally similar all-in-one concentrate devices — particularly those resembling the RIG IN ONE form factor — faces potential exposure across all four patent families.
Should you run an FTO against US10786006B2 and related Stache Products patents?
If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or distributes portable dab rigs or all-in-one concentrate consumption devices, this four-patent portfolio warrants a formal freedom-to-operate review. The combination of utility patents covering functional aspects and a design patent covering product appearance means even a redesigned product may face exposure if the overall commercial impression or core mechanism resembles the RIG IN ONE. Distributors in particular — as TSJ Distributors’ situation illustrates — can face primary infringement liability even without manufacturing the accused product.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the claim language of US10786006B2, US11497244B2, US11497252B2, and the ornamental scope of USD0872933S simultaneously. Eureka identifies relevant prior art, compares claim limitations, and flags design-around opportunities — helping your R&D and legal teams make go/no-go commercialisation decisions before products reach market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10786006B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Cannabis Hardware & Portable Device Patent Cases in C.D. California
Explore related patent infringement actions involving portable cannabis consumption devices and consumer hardware IP enforced in the Central District of California.
What this case signals for the cannabis accessories IP landscape
A four-patent enforcement action resolved in under six months reveals how enforceable product-specific IP can shape distribution channels in cannabis hardware.
Multi-layered IP (utility + design) raises the barrier for distributors
Stache Products asserted both utility and design patents in a single action, making it significantly harder for a defendant to design around or challenge on invalidity grounds alone. Distributors handling branded cannabis hardware should treat overlapping IP portfolios as a heightened risk factor when sourcing competing products.
Pre-claim-construction settlement limits public precedent — but not risk
No Markman ruling was issued, so claim scope was never publicly defined. This preserves Stache Products’ flexibility to assert broader claim interpretations in future enforcement actions. For potential defendants, the absence of a limiting construction means uncertainty remains high and early FTO analysis is advisable.
Stache v TSJ — key questions answered
Stache Products asserted four patents: utility patents US10786006B2, US11497244B2, and US11497252B2, and design patent USD0872933S. All four cover aspects of the RIG IN ONE portable dab rig, combining functional and ornamental protection for the device.
The case settled. On August 22, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement after approximately 175 days of litigation. The court stayed proceedings and ordered a Stipulation of Dismissal by September 23, 2024. No financial terms, licensing arrangements, or other settlement details were disclosed in the public docket.
No. Because the case settled before any merits ruling — there was no claim construction order, summary judgment, or trial verdict — all four asserted patents remain legally valid and unimpaired. A settlement does not constitute a finding of invalidity or non-infringement by either party.
The RIG IN ONE is a portable, all-in-one dab rig manufactured by Stache Products for consuming cannabis concentrates. It is the subject of multiple utility and design patents and was the accused product in the infringement action against TSJ Distributors INC.
A 175-day resolution — before any Markman hearing or significant motion practice — suggests the parties reached a commercial accommodation early, likely after assessing litigation costs versus settlement value. This timeline is consistent with defendants in cannabis hardware cases preferring negotiated exits when faced with multi-patent portfolios combining utility and design rights.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.