Tan Grow Inc v. Laetipet-US et al: Dismissed With Prejudice After 447 Days
Tan Grow Inc pursued multiple Amazon marketplace sellers for infringing US10882662B2, covering foldable bathtubs and liquid containers with supporting frames. After 447 days of litigation in N.D. Illinois, the case was dismissed with prejudice — triggered when Tan Grow filed a duplicative action in the Eastern District of Virginia covering the same defendants and the same patent.
A foldable-bathtub patent suit ends in prejudicial dismissal after plaintiff doubled down in Virginia
On September 19, 2023, Tan Grow Inc filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:23-cv-13878) against a group of Amazon marketplace sellers — including Laetipet-US, Maygoziy, PEACNNG Co. Ltd, Baolibo, Hblai, Living Essentials Corp, and Lovepet — as well as Amazon itself, asserting infringement of US10882662B2, which protects a foldable liquid container with a supporting frame, commercially embodied in foldable bathtub products.
The case was dismissed with prejudice on December 9, 2024, following a motion by defendants Laetipet-US and Maygoziy invoking the duplicative-litigation doctrine. The defendants demonstrated that Tan Grow had filed a substantially identical action in the Eastern District of Virginia (No. 24-cv-01855) on or around October 18, 2024, covering the same accused product, the same patent, and the same defendants — while simultaneously obtaining an ex parte TRO in that court by representing that defendant identities were unknown, despite having litigated against them in Illinois for over a year.
The 447-day duration and the with-prejudice outcome are commercially significant: Tan Grow cannot refile the same claims against these specific defendants in federal court. The defendants’ request for costs and fees — if granted — would add further financial consequence. The public record does not confirm whether the fee award was ultimately issued, nor does it detail the status of the parallel Eastern District of Virginia proceeding. The episode is consistent with a litigation strategy sometimes employed in multi-defendant e-commerce enforcement actions, where plaintiffs cycle jurisdictions to maintain TRO leverage over seller accounts.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 447 days
447 days — above the median for patent cases voluntarily refiled in a second district
Dismissed with prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Duplicative-litigation doctrine triggered the dismissal
The duplicative-litigation doctrine bars a plaintiff from maintaining two separate federal actions involving the same subject matter, same patent, and same defendants simultaneously. Here, Tan Grow’s October 2024 Virginia filing — asserting the same ‘662 Patent against the same sellers — gave defendants grounds to move for dismissal in Illinois. The court’s with-prejudice ruling goes beyond procedural housekeeping: it forecloses Tan Grow from reasserting these claims against these defendants.
Duplicative-litigation doctrineWith-prejudice bar permanently closes the Illinois claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, meaning Tan Grow cannot refile these specific infringement claims against Laetipet-US, Maygoziy, or the other named Illinois defendants in any federal court. The plaintiff’s parallel Virginia action remains a separate proceeding, but the Illinois dismissal weakens Tan Grow’s overall enforcement posture and may inform how the Virginia court views the conduct. The public record does not confirm whether the Virginia case continues.
Claim preclusion riskSellers escape Illinois liability — and pursued fee sanctions
The named Amazon sellers achieved a with-prejudice dismissal, providing strong preclusive protection against re-litigation of these claims. Critically, defendants also moved for an award of costs and legal fees, citing Tan Grow’s conduct — particularly the ex parte TRO obtained in Virginia while misrepresenting that defendant identities were unknown — as sanctionable. Whether the fee award was granted is not confirmed in the public docket data reviewed, but the motion signals that defendants regarded the plaintiff’s conduct as litigation misconduct.
Fee award motion filedE-commerce TRO tactics face increasing judicial scrutiny
This case illustrates a pattern seen in multi-defendant Amazon enforcement actions: plaintiffs use ex parte TROs to freeze seller accounts, then refile in new jurisdictions to reset that leverage. Courts are increasingly alert to this strategy. A with-prejudice dismissal here, combined with a fee-award motion grounded in duplicative filing, suggests judicial tolerance for such tactics is narrowing. IP holders enforcing product patents against e-commerce sellers should expect stricter scrutiny of multi-district, overlapping TRO strategies.
E-commerce enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Tan Grow Inc | Company | Consumer products IP licensor — holder of US10882662B2 (foldable bathtub/container patent)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A | Individual | Amazon marketplace sellers and Amazon, accused of selling infringing foldable bathtub productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | laetipet-us | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Maygoziy | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | PEACNNG Co. Ltd | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Baolibo | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Hblai | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Living Essentials Corp | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lovepet | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Amazon | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ge Lei | Attorney | Counsel for Tan Grow IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jun Ye | Attorney | Counsel for Tan Grow IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Getech Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Tan Grow IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal with prejudice was entered on the basis of the duplicative-litigation doctrine rather than a merits adjudication of infringement. This means the court did not rule on whether US10882662B2 was valid or infringed — it terminated the Illinois proceedings because Tan Grow had filed a substantively identical action in the Eastern District of Virginia. The with-prejudice qualifier is consequential: unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, it constitutes a final judgment for res judicata purposes, foreclosing Tan Grow from reasserting these specific claims against the Illinois-named defendants. The defendants’ accompanying fee-award request, if granted, would further signal judicial disapproval of the duplicative filing strategy.
US10882662B2 — Foldable Liquid Container with Supporting Frame
US10882662B2, filed under application number US16/041822, protects a foldable liquid container with a supporting frame — a structural innovation that allows bathtubs and similar liquid-holding vessels to collapse for compact storage and expand for use. The patent covers both the mechanical architecture of the collapsible frame and the container design that integrates with it. This class of product has become a significant category on e-commerce platforms, particularly for infant and portable adult bathing solutions sold by marketplace third-party sellers.
The commercial relevance of US10882662B2 lies in the explosive growth of private-label and white-label foldable bathtub products sold via Amazon by Chinese and international third-party sellers. Because the manufacturing cost of such products is low and the design is easily replicated, patent enforcement through TROs and account freezes has become the dominant enforcement strategy. Any manufacturer, importer, or marketplace seller in the foldable bathtub or portable container sector should treat this patent as an active infringement risk, particularly given Tan Grow’s demonstrated willingness to pursue multi-district enforcement campaigns.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10882662B2?
If your company manufactures, imports, distributes, or sells foldable bathtubs, collapsible liquid containers, or portable bathing products — particularly via Amazon or other marketplace platforms — US10882662B2 represents a live enforcement risk. The Tan Grow litigation demonstrates that the patent holder is actively pursuing marketplace sellers, including via ex parte TROs that can freeze seller accounts with minimal notice. Even if the Illinois case was dismissed with prejudice as to specific defendants, the parallel Virginia action and broader enforcement activity make an FTO assessment commercially urgent for any new market entrant or existing seller in this product category.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10882662B2 against your specific product design, identify prior art that may limit claim breadth, and flag related family members or continuation applications that could extend the enforcement perimeter. For marketplace sellers facing TRO exposure, Eureka can also surface the litigation history of the patent holder to inform response strategy and identify whether other defendants have successfully challenged the patent’s validity or enforceability.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US1918218183 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar foldable consumer product patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Browse related patent infringement actions involving foldable or collapsible consumer product patents and Amazon multi-seller enforcement in N.D. Illinois federal court.
What this case signals for the consumer product patent enforcement landscape
The Tan Grow dismissal exposes structural risks in the TRO-driven multi-defendant enforcement playbook used heavily in e-commerce IP litigation.
Duplicative filings can boomerang into with-prejudice dismissals
Patent holders coordinating enforcement across multiple federal districts must audit for duplicative-litigation risk before filing. If the same patent, product, and defendants appear in two simultaneous actions, the first-filed court may dismiss with prejudice — permanently barring those claims. This outcome is more damaging than a voluntary dismissal.
Ex parte TRO conduct in a parallel action can undermine the original case
Tan Grow’s Virginia TRO — obtained by representing defendant identities were unknown despite active Illinois litigation — became exhibit A in the dismissal motion. Courts treat such inconsistencies as relevant to both the merits of TRO relief and to attorney-fees exposure. IP litigants must ensure representations across parallel proceedings are consistent.
Tan v Entities — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice under the duplicative-litigation doctrine. Defendants Laetipet-US and Maygoziy demonstrated that Tan Grow had filed a substantially identical action in the Eastern District of Virginia in October 2024, asserting the same patent (US10882662B2) against the same defendants for the same accused products while the Illinois case was still active.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. Tan Grow is barred from reasserting the same patent infringement claims against the Illinois-named defendants — including Laetipet-US and Maygoziy — in any federal court. Refiling the same claims would likely be met with a res judicata defense.
The primary patent at issue is US10882662B2, filed as application US16/041822. It protects a foldable liquid container with a collapsible supporting frame, commercially embodied in foldable bathtub products. A second patent, US1327866A (corrected application US1918218183), is also listed as involved in the case.
The defendants — including Laetipet-US and Maygoziy — moved for an award of costs and legal fees, arguing that Tan Grow’s conduct, including obtaining a TRO in Virginia while misrepresenting defendant identities, constituted sanctionable litigation misconduct. The public case record reviewed does not confirm whether the fee award was ultimately granted by the court.
The duplicative-litigation doctrine prevents a plaintiff from maintaining two simultaneous federal actions involving the same subject matter, patent, and defendants. In this case, Tan Grow’s October 2024 Virginia filing — covering the same ‘662 Patent, same accused products, and same defendants as the Illinois case — gave defendants grounds to invoke the doctrine and seek dismissal with prejudice of the Illinois action.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.