Storebound v. Walmart: Cooking Appliance Patent Dismissed With Prejudice in 80 Days
Storebound LLC filed suit against Walmart Inc. in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania asserting US12171368B1, a patent covering cooking appliances with removable plates. The case resolved in just 80 days via stipulated voluntary dismissal with prejudice — a swift conclusion that typically signals a settlement or licence agreement reached before substantive litigation began.
A rapid exit: Storebound’s removable-plate patent claim against Walmart
On 28 February 2025, Storebound LLC filed a patent infringement action against Walmart Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:25-cv-01082), assigned to Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro. The suit centred on US12171368B1, a patent protecting a series of cooking appliances featuring removable plates — a product category closely associated with countertop grills, waffle makers, and multi-use contact cookers sold at mass retail.
The case closed on 19 May 2025 — just 80 days after filing — through a stipulated voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: Storebound permanently relinquished its right to reassert the same patent claims against Walmart on the same products. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, meaning no fee-shifting motion was pursued and the court made no finding of exceptionality.
An 80-day resolution before any substantive motions or claim construction proceedings typically suggests the parties reached a private commercial resolution — most likely a licence, a design-around commitment, or a product substitution — shortly after the complaint was served. The absence of a docket entry revealing settlement terms means the financial details, if any, remain confidential. What the public record cannot confirm is whether Storebound received compensation or whether Walmart simply agreed to modify its product sourcing.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 80 days
80 days — well under the 2–3 year median for patent cases reaching trial in E.D. Pa.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): stipulated dismissal with prejudice
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), both parties signed a stipulation to dismiss voluntarily. The with-prejudice designation means the dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits — Storebound cannot refile the same claims against Walmart on US12171368B1. This mechanism is the standard vehicle for ending patent litigation once a private resolution is reached, and it requires no court approval beyond docketing.
Permanent bar on refilingStorebound surrenders its right to re-sue Walmart
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Storebound permanently closed the door on pursuing Walmart in court for infringement of US12171368B1 on the accused products. In exchange, Storebound likely extracted a commercial concession — whether a royalty, a lump-sum payment, or a product change by Walmart. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties; only Walmart benefits from the finality of this dismissal.
Patent survives; Walmart protectedWalmart secures a litigation-free path on these claims
Walmart obtains certainty: Storebound cannot reassert US12171368B1 against it for the same accused cooking appliances. Whether Walmart paid for that certainty or negotiated a product substitution is not disclosed. The each-party-bears-own-costs term suggests neither side sought to characterise the case as exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested adjudication.
Claims permanently extinguishedUS12171368B1 remains live against the broader market
The rapid, confidential resolution against a defendant of Walmart’s scale suggests Storebound views US12171368B1 as a commercially viable enforcement asset. Other retailers, contract manufacturers, and importers of removable-plate cooking appliances — particularly those supplying mass-market channels — should treat this outcome as a signal that Storebound is actively monitoring its patent portfolio and willing to litigate to enforce it.
Broader enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Storebound, LLC | Company | Consumer appliance IP licensor — holder of US12171368B1 covering removable-plate cooking appliancesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Walmart, Inc. | Company | Walmart Inc. — global mass-market retailer alleged to sell infringing cooking appliancesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kean C. Maynard | Attorney | Counsel for Storebound, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bochetto & Lentz PC | Law Firm | Representing Storebound, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Barry J. Herman | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | KEVIN J. MANGAN | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP | Law Firm | Representing Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge NITZA I QUINONES ALEJANDRO | Judge | Pennsylvania Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation records a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) with each party bearing its own costs. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal fact: it functions as a final judgment on the merits, permanently barring Storebound from reasserting these infringement claims against Walmart. The mutual cost-bearing provision indicates no party sought an exceptional-case fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution rather than a litigation win or loss. No findings of fact, claim construction, or validity determinations were issued, leaving US12171368B1 fully intact against third parties.
US12171368B1 — cooking appliances with removable plates
US12171368B1 (application number US18/666274) protects a series of cooking appliances characterised by removable plate assemblies — a design feature central to countertop grills, waffle makers, panini presses, and multi-function contact cookers sold widely in mass-market retail. The patent was granted as a B1 publication, indicating it issued without any pre-grant publication, suggesting a relatively streamlined prosecution history. The removable-plate architecture addresses both usability (cleaning, interchangeable cooking surfaces) and potentially safety-related detachment mechanisms.
In the competitive consumer small-appliance market, removable-plate technology is a high-volume commercial feature. Patents in this space are strategically valuable to IP holders who license into retail supply chains rather than manufacture directly. Storebound’s willingness to assert US12171368B1 against a defendant of Walmart’s size and legal resources signals confidence in the patent’s claim scope. Competing brands — particularly those sourcing OEM products from contract manufacturers in Asia for sale through major retail channels — face material risk if their removable-plate cooking appliance designs fall within the claim boundaries of this patent.
Should you run an FTO against US12171368B1?
Any company designing, importing, distributing, or retailing cooking appliances with removable or interchangeable plate assemblies should treat US12171368B1 as a live enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that Storebound actively monitors mass-market retail channels and is prepared to file suit in federal court. The risk is not limited to large retailers: OEM manufacturers, private-label brands, and e-commerce sellers in the countertop appliance category are all potential targets if their products practise the claimed features.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US12171368B1 against your product specifications, identify design-around opportunities, and surface any continuation or divisional applications in Storebound’s portfolio that may create additional exposure. Running a structured FTO analysis before your next product launch or retail buyer meeting is a lower-cost intervention than responding to a cease-and-desist or complaint.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12171368B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cooking appliance patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving consumer cooking appliance patents asserted in U.S. district courts, particularly against mass-market retailers, share key procedural and commercial patterns with this E.D. Pa. action.
What this case signals for the cooking appliance IP landscape
A swift dismissal against a major retailer rarely means the patent holder walked away empty-handed.
80-day dismissals in patent cases almost always mask a private deal
When a patent case against a Fortune 1 retailer closes in under three months with a with-prejudice dismissal and no fee award, the most plausible inference is a confidential licence or commercial agreement. IP teams at retailers and appliance brands should assume Storebound is now positioned to cite this precedent in future enforcement conversations.
The with-prejudice term protects Walmart — not the rest of the market
US12171368B1 is untouched by this dismissal and fully enforceable. Competing retailers, OEM suppliers, and importers selling removable-plate cooking appliances have no protection from the resolution Walmart obtained. Any party in the supply chain of similar products should assess their exposure independently.
Storebound v Walmart — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Storebound permanently waived its right to sue Walmart again on the same infringement claims under US12171368B1. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against all other parties — only Walmart received the benefit of finality from this stipulation.
Storebound asserted US12171368B1 (application number US18/666274), which protects a series of cooking appliances with removable plates — a category spanning countertop grills, waffle makers, panini presses, and multi-function contact cookers commonly sold in mass-market retail environments.
An 80-day resolution before any substantive court proceedings — no claim construction, no motions practice — is consistent with the parties reaching a private commercial agreement shortly after the complaint was served. This typically takes the form of a licence, royalty payment, or product modification. The public record does not disclose the terms of any such agreement.
No. The dismissal with prejudice only protects Walmart from being re-sued by Storebound on these specific claims. US12171368B1 remains fully valid and enforceable against any other party — including competing retailers, OEM suppliers, importers, and e-commerce sellers — whose products may practise the claimed removable-plate cooking appliance technology.
In U.S. patent litigation, a prevailing party may seek attorney fee awards in ‘exceptional’ cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The stipulation that each party bears its own costs signals that neither side sought such an award, which is consistent with a negotiated commercial exit. It does not indicate who, if anyone, made a payment — only that no litigation cost recovery was sought through the court.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.