TA3, Inc. v. Cupshe: SQUAREY® Design Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
TA3, Inc. brought a design patent infringement action against Cupshe, LLC and its Chinese parent, Nanjing Kapeixi Network Technology Co., Ltd., alleging that Cupshe’s square-neck one-piece swimsuit styles copied TA3’s patented SQUAREY® design. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal with prejudice in just 118 days — each side bearing its own costs.
Design patent clash over square-neck swimwear ends swiftly
Filed on 6 August 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, this action pitted TA3, Inc. — holder of U.S. Design Patent D1,037,606 covering the ornamental design of the SQUAREY® sculpting one-piece swimsuit — against Cupshe, LLC and its Chinese affiliate Nanjing Kapeixi Network Technology Co., Ltd., which operates the www.cupshe.com e-commerce platform. TA3 alleged that Cupshe’s ‘Reverie’ and ‘The Square Neck’ styles, including the Square Neck Back Tie Tummy Control One-Piece and the Reverie Land Square Neck Slim & Sculpt One-Piece, infringed the protected design.
The case closed on 2 December 2024 — just 118 days after filing — via a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court ordered dismissal with prejudice and directed each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes, meaning TA3 is permanently barred from re-asserting the same design patent claims against Cupshe arising from the same accused products.
The speed of resolution — fewer than four months from filing to closure — strongly suggests the parties reached a private settlement or licensing arrangement before discovery could meaningfully progress, though the public record is silent on any financial terms. The mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a clear winner, and the with-prejudice designation may reflect a structured covenant not to sue. What drove the swift resolution — whether a licence, design-around, product withdrawal, or pure commercial compromise — remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 118 days
Resolved in 118 days — well under the typical 2–3 year district court average for IP cases.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A stipulated dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires both parties to sign and file the agreement — neither side can force it unilaterally. When entered with prejudice, the dismissal operates as a final judgment on the merits, permanently extinguishing TA3’s right to bring the same design patent claims against Cupshe for the same accused products. Courts routinely endorse these without substantive review.
Bilateral — both parties signedTA3 forfeits re-filing rights but retains the patent
By accepting dismissal with prejudice, TA3 permanently waives the right to sue Cupshe again over D1,037,606 on the same accused products. However, the underlying design patent remains in force and fully enforceable against any other party. If Cupshe introduces new products with a materially different infringement theory, a fresh action may still be possible. The no-costs term means TA3 absorbs its own legal spend.
Patent survives; claims extinguishedCupshe secures finality — but must manage ongoing design risk
Cupshe and Nanjing Kapeixi obtain a final bar against TA3 re-litigating the same dispute. Morrison & Foerster’s involvement signals Cupshe treated this seriously. The with-prejudice dismissal provides certainty over the specific accused ‘Reverie’ and ‘Square Neck’ styles. That said, Cupshe may need to monitor whether future design iterations could trigger new infringement exposure from TA3 or other design patent holders in the swimwear space.
Cupshe — finality on accused stylesFast resolution signals live design patent risk in swimwear e-commerce
The 118-day lifecycle and mutual cost-bearing suggest a commercial compromise rather than a litigated outcome. For fast-fashion and swimwear e-commerce brands sourcing designs from overseas manufacturers, this case highlights that design patents on body-contour swimwear are being actively enforced. The involvement of a Chinese parent entity (Nanjing Kapeixi) and a U.S. subsidiary also illustrates the cross-border dimension of modern design patent enforcement.
Design patent enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | TA3, Inc. | Company | Swimwear brand and design patent holder — owner of US-D1037606-S (SQUAREY®)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cupshe, LLC | Company | Online swimwear retailer Cupshe, LLC and Chinese parent Nanjing Kapeixi Network Technology Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Nanjing Kapeixi Network Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a www.cupshe.com | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tammy J. Terry. | Attorney | Counsel for TA3, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Osha Bergman Watanabe and Burton LLP | Law Firm | Representing TA3, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joyce Liou | Attorney | Counsel for Cupshe, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Morgan O’Neill Mitruka | Attorney | Counsel for Cupshe, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morrison & Foerster, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cupshe, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint stipulation verbatim, confirming this was a wholly consensual exit. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: it functions as a final judgment for res judicata purposes, foreclosing any future TA3 action against Cupshe on D1,037,606 for the same accused products. The mutual cost-bearing provision — rather than fee-shifting to either side — is consistent with a negotiated resolution and suggests neither party secured a clear litigation win before settlement.
US-D1037606-S — SQUAREY® square-neck sculpting one-piece swimsuit
US Design Patent D1,037,606 protects the ornamental appearance of TA3’s SQUAREY® one-piece swimsuit — a square-neck, slim-and-sculpt silhouette that has become a recognisable product in the direct-to-consumer activewear and swimwear segment. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect only visual ornamental characteristics, not functional features. Infringement is assessed under the ordinary observer test: whether an ordinary consumer would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design.
The SQUAREY® design sits at the intersection of the fast-growing body-positive swimwear market and the rise of social-media-driven dupes culture — as reflected in the product tags ‘ta3 dupe’ and ‘ta3 knockoff’ associated with Cupshe’s accused styles. For competing swimwear brands and e-commerce retailers sourcing from overseas manufacturers, D1,037,606 represents a live enforcement risk for any square-neck one-piece with a similar sculpting silhouette. The patent’s assertion against two distinct Cupshe SKUs demonstrates TA3’s willingness to pursue broad enforcement across product variants.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US-D1037606-S?
Any brand developing or sourcing square-neck, body-sculpting one-piece swimwear for the U.S. market should treat D1,037,606 as a live design patent risk. The ordinary observer standard means that even non-identical designs can infringe if a consumer would find them substantially similar. Given that TA3 has already demonstrated willingness to litigate against a major e-commerce retailer, the enforcement intent is established. Swimwear brands, private-label manufacturers, and platform sellers with similar product aesthetics face meaningful exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of D1,037,606, surface design patents with overlapping visual claims in the swimwear category, and identify whether your product’s silhouette falls within the ordinary observer risk zone. Eureka can also flag any continuation or related design applications filed by TA3, giving your product team early warning of an expanding design patent portfolio before launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US-D1037606-S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar swimwear and fashion design patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable design patent infringement actions involving swimwear and apparel ornamental designs litigated in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the swimwear and fashion IP landscape
A 118-day design patent dispute resolved with prejudice reveals how fast-fashion brands and e-commerce operators face real enforcement exposure.
Design patents are enforceable fast — and fast-fashion retailers are targets
TA3’s D1,037,606 patent was asserted against specific product SKUs on Cupshe’s e-commerce platform within what appears to be a short window of alleged copying. Design patents require no proof of intent, only visual similarity under the ordinary observer test — making them potent and quick enforcement tools against copycat styles.
Cross-border e-commerce defendants attract major law firm opposition
Cupshe’s engagement of Morrison & Foerster — a Tier 1 IP litigation firm — indicates the commercial stakes were material despite the case’s brevity. Companies operating U.S. storefronts via Chinese parent entities should expect that design patent plaintiffs will name both entities, increasing litigation complexity and cost exposure.
TA3 v Cupshe — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of both parties on 2 December 2024, approximately 118 days after filing. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The dismissal with prejudice means TA3 cannot re-file the same design patent claims against Cupshe over the same accused products.
TA3 asserted U.S. Design Patent D1,037,606 (application number US-D1037606-S), which covers the ornamental design of TA3’s SQUAREY® square-neck sculpting one-piece swimsuit. The accused Cupshe products included the ‘Reverie’ and ‘The Square Neck’ styles, specifically the Square Neck Back Tie Tummy Control One-Piece and the Reverie Land Square Neck Slim & Sculpt One-Piece.
Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes TA3’s right to sue Cupshe again for infringement of D1,037,606 based on the same accused products. However, the underlying design patent remains valid and fully enforceable against all other third parties. TA3 can still assert D1,037,606 against any other retailer or manufacturer selling substantially similar swimwear designs.
The 118-day resolution — before any significant discovery or claim construction proceedings — is consistent with a private settlement or licensing arrangement between the parties. The public record does not disclose any financial terms. The mutual cost-bearing provision and the with-prejudice designation together suggest a negotiated commercial resolution rather than a litigated outcome.
TA3, Inc. was represented by Tammy J. Terry of Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton LLP. Cupshe, LLC and Nanjing Kapeixi Network Technology Co., Ltd. were represented by Joyce Liou and Morgan O’Neill Mitruka of Morrison & Foerster, LLP. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.