Stander v. Baiera Wellness Products: Bed Step Patent Action Dismissed
Stander Inc. filed a patent infringement action in the Utah District Court against Baiera Wellness Products, asserting US10213353B2 covering a Bed Step mobility-assistance device. The case closed just 59 days after filing when Stander voluntarily dismissed without prejudice — before the defendant answered or moved for summary judgment.
Stander’s swift voluntary exit leaves Bed Step IP dispute unresolved
Stander Inc. initiated Case No. 1:24-cv-00115 in the Utah District Court on 9 July 2024, asserting infringement of US10213353B2 — a patent covering a Bed Step mobility-assistance device — against Baiera Wellness Products. The action was assigned to Judge Dale A. Kimball, with Dorsey & Whitney LLP representing Stander through attorneys Mark A. Miller and Michele M. Myer. No defendant agents or law firm appeared on the public record.
On 6 September 2024, just 59 days after filing, Stander filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). Because Baiera Wellness Products had not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the dismissal was available as of right — requiring no court order. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Stander retains the right to refile the same claims in a future action.
The speed of resolution — under two months — is notable and suggests the parties may have reached an informal commercial arrangement, or that Stander reassessed its litigation strategy early. The public record does not reveal whether any settlement, licensing negotiation, or cease-and-desist compliance underpinned the dismissal. Because no merits determination was made, the validity and scope of US10213353B2 remain untested by this court.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 59 days
59 days — resolved well before the typical 2–3 year district court lifecycle
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A) allows dismissal as of right — no court order needed
Under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a Rule 56 motion. Because Baiera Wellness Products took neither step, Stander’s notice was self-executing. The court issued no ruling on the merits, on claim construction, or on any substantive motion.
Procedural exit — no merits rulingWithout prejudice: what the public record does and does not confirm
The dismissal notice expressly states ‘without prejudice’, meaning Stander is not barred from refiling the same patent claims against Baiera Wellness Products or others. However, the public record is silent on whether an underlying settlement, licence, or commercial agreement was reached. Practitioners should not assume a clean resolution — the dispute could be revived if any informal arrangement breaks down.
Refiling right preservedBaiera exits without admission — but the IP threat is not extinguished
Baiera Wellness Products obtained dismissal without making any legal concession, without paying any adjudicated damages, and without a validity finding on US10213353B2. However, the without-prejudice nature means no res judicata protection attaches. Baiera’s continued commercialisation of competing Bed Step products could trigger a re-filed action if the underlying dispute was not commercially resolved.
No admission, no preclusionUnresolved IP creates ongoing uncertainty in the mobility-aid market
US10213353B2 remains valid and enforceable on its face. Any competitor in the bed-step and mobility-aid space — not just Baiera — should treat this case as a signal that Stander is willing to assert this patent in district court litigation. The absence of a merits ruling means no claim construction guidance or invalidity precedent is available to inform design-around or clearance strategies.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Stander | Individual | Mobility-aid product company — holder of US10213353B2 (Bed Step device)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Baiera Wellness Products | Individual | Baiera Wellness Products — wellness and daily-living aid product supplierSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark A. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for StanderSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michele M. Myer | Attorney | Counsel for StanderSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dorsey & Whitney, LLP | Law Firm | Representing StanderSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Dale A. Kimball | Judge | Utah District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) explicitly and confirms two triggering conditions: the defendant had not answered, and no Rule 56 motion had been filed. The express ‘without prejudice’ language is operative — it forecloses any argument that the dismissal carries preclusive effect. No substantive findings were made on infringement, validity, or damages, leaving US10213353B2 fully enforceable and the underlying dispute legally unresolved.
US10213353B2 — Bed Step mobility-assist device technology
US10213353B2, filed under application number US16/042930, protects a Bed Step device — a mobility-assistance product designed to help users get in and out of bed safely. The patent sits within the durable medical equipment and daily-living-aid technology domain. Its grant reflects novel structural or functional elements in step-assist and bed-support design that distinguish it from the prior art at the time of application.
For the mobility-aid and assistive-device sector, this patent represents an enforceable IP position on a product category with growing commercial relevance as populations age. Stander’s willingness to file district court litigation — even where the case resolved quickly — signals active enforcement intent. Competitors developing or selling bed-step products face a non-trivial risk of future assertion, particularly without a judicial narrowing of the claim scope to rely upon.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10213353B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing bed-step, step-assist, or bed-support mobility products should treat US10213353B2 as a live enforcement risk. This case confirms Stander has both the willingness and the legal infrastructure to file suit in federal court. The absence of a claim construction ruling means the full breadth of the patent’s claims remains in play — there is no judicial guidance to narrow the risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US10213353B2 against your product specifications, identify prosecution history estoppel that may limit scope, and flag related family members or continuation filings. For R&D and product teams in the assistive-device category, running a structured FTO before launch is materially lower-cost than defending a re-filed infringement action in Utah District Court.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10213353B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobility-aid and assistive-device patent cases in US district courts
Cases involving durable medical equipment and bed-step mobility-aid patents in Utah District Court and comparable US federal venues, resolved by voluntary dismissal or early settlement.
What this case signals for the mobility-aid device IP landscape
A rapid voluntary dismissal in a medical mobility-aid patent case rarely signals indifference — it typically reflects a strategic pivot or a quiet resolution.
Early dismissals often mask commercial resolutions — monitor both parties
When a plaintiff with professional IP counsel (Dorsey & Whitney) voluntarily dismisses in under 60 days before the defendant even answers, the most common explanations are a licensing agreement, a cease-and-desist compliance, or a reassessed infringement read. Patent teams monitoring this space should track subsequent product listings by Baiera Wellness Products for any design changes.
US10213353B2 is untested — validity and scope remain open questions
No claim construction, IPR, or validity ruling has issued on US10213353B2. For R&D and product teams developing bed-step or mobility-assist devices, this means there is no judicial narrowing of the claims to rely on. A thorough FTO analysis against the full claim set is advisable before launching competing products in the bed-step category.
Stander v Baiera — key questions answered
Stander filed a notice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissing its infringement claims before Baiera answered or moved for summary judgment. ‘Without prejudice’ means no preclusive effect attaches — Stander may refile the same claims in future. No court order was required, and no merits determination was made.
Yes. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice has no effect on patent validity or enforceability. US10213353B2 remains granted and in force. The dismissal produced no claim construction ruling or invalidity finding that would limit Stander’s ability to assert the patent again.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Possible explanations consistent with the facts include an out-of-court settlement, a licensing or cease-and-desist agreement, or a strategic reassessment of the infringement read. The 59-day timeline and the absence of any defendant counsel on record are consistent with an early commercial resolution.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Stander is not barred from refiling the same claims against Baiera. If refiled after a second voluntary dismissal, however, FRCP 41(a)(1)(B)’s ‘two-dismissal rule’ would operate as an adjudication on the merits, barring further refiling against the same defendant on the same claims.
US10213353B2, filed as application US16/042930, covers a Bed Step mobility-assistance device — a product category designed to help users safely enter and exit beds. The patent sits within the durable medical equipment and assistive daily-living-aid sector. The specific structural or functional claims that differentiate it from prior art have not been judicially construed in this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.