Case Overview

In a patent infringement dispute that concluded faster than many litigants anticipate, Stache Products, LLC voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against Vape Plus Distribution, Corp. with prejudice — ending a 187-day legal battle before reaching trial. Filed in the Eastern District of New York on October 12, 2023, and closed April 16, 2024, the case centered on four patents covering dab rig technology and design, with the accused products including the “RIG IN ONE” and “SUPREB RIG IN ONE KIT” product lines.

For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in the cannabis accessories and vaporizer hardware space, this case offers a revealing lens into how dab rig patent infringement claims are asserted — and why voluntary dismissal with prejudice can represent a calculated strategic outcome rather than a simple concession. The case number 1:23-cv-07625 is now a closed record in the Eastern District of New York, but its procedural arc carries meaningful lessons for IP strategy in a rapidly commercializing sector.

The Parties

Patents at Issue

This litigation involved four patents protecting key aspects of dab rig technology and design. The combination of utility and design patents signals a layered IP enforcement strategy, protecting both functional innovation and commercial product aesthetics simultaneously.

• • US10786006B2 — Utility patent covering dab rig apparatus
• • US11497244B2 — Utility patent in the dab rig technology family
• • US11497252B2 — Utility patent, likely covering functional variations
• • USD0872933S — Design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of the rig product

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

Stache Products, LLC voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice on April 12, 2024, with each party bearing its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was granted. The dismissal with prejudice means Stache Products cannot refile the same claims against Vape Plus Distribution on the same patents and accused products — a permanent relinquishment of those specific claims.

Key Legal Issues

The case was initiated as an infringement action based on the four patents listed above. However, the litigation never advanced to claim construction, summary judgment briefing, or trial on the merits. The voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — available only before the defendant serves a responsive pleading — indicates the case resolved at its earliest procedural stage.

Several strategic explanations exist for this outcome: a confidential settlement, a plaintiff re-evaluation of infringement claim strength or litigation costs, or the defendant modifying/discontinuing the accused products. No specific damages amount was disclosed, and no claim construction order or infringement/validity rulings were issued, meaning the case carries no direct precedential value regarding the validity or enforceability of the asserted patents.