Tan Grow v. Link Future — Pet Bathtub Patent Infringement Settled After 819 Days
Tan Grow, Inc. filed suit in the Central District of California against Link Future, 3Q Mart, Sinowell, and Vivohome, asserting four patents — two design and two utility — covering pet bathtub products. The case settled in February 2025, with a stipulated final judgment anticipated following 819 days of litigation.
Four-Patent Pet Bathtub Dispute Resolves via Settlement in C.D. Cal.
Tan Grow, Inc. filed case No. 2:22-cv-08257 in the Central District of California on November 11, 2022, asserting infringement of four patents against a group of defendants including Link Future Inc., 3Q Mart Inc., Sinowell Inc., and Vivohome Inc. The asserted portfolio comprised two design patents — USD940285S and USD940286S — and two utility patents, US10543957B2 and US10882662B2, all directed to pet bathtub products.
The case concluded on February 7, 2025, when Tan Grow and defendant Vivohome Inc. jointly notified the court that they had reached a settlement and requested the vacatur of scheduled litigation dates to allow time to prepare formal settlement documents and file a stipulated final judgment. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Settled,’ suggesting a negotiated resolution rather than a merits adjudication.
The 819-day duration suggests the matter involved substantive pretrial activity before settlement was reached. The public record does not disclose financial terms, royalty arrangements, or licensing conditions. It is unclear whether all four defendants settled simultaneously or whether Vivohome’s settlement was reached independently of the other defendants. The filing of a stipulated final judgment, once entered, will formally close the action.
Filing to Case Settled in 819 days
819 days in litigation — notably longer than the median district court IP case resolution
Case settled: what the resolution means for both parties
Settlement ends litigation without a merits ruling
A settlement-based termination means no court has adjudicated whether the asserted patents were infringed or invalid. The parties negotiated a private resolution, with a stipulated final judgment to be filed. This is consistent with a business-driven outcome where litigation risk and cost for both sides outweighed the value of a contested trial.
No merits adjudicationTan Grow secures resolution without exposing patents to invalidity risk
By settling rather than proceeding to trial or summary judgment, Tan Grow avoids the risk of having its design or utility patents invalidated. The four-patent portfolio remains intact and enforceable. Settlement terms are undisclosed, but Tan Grow may have secured licensing fees, design-arounds, or injunctive undertakings — the public record is silent on specifics.
Portfolio preservedDefendants resolve exposure without a finding of infringement
A settlement means no court found the defendants liable for patent infringement. However, agreeing to settle after 819 days of litigation typically signals meaningful legal exposure. Defendants may have agreed to cease certain product sales, pay a licensing fee, or modify product designs. Terms remain confidential under the settlement agreement.
No infringement findingPet product market: design and utility patents enforced together
This case illustrates a dual-track enforcement strategy — combining design patents (product appearance) and utility patents (functional features) against multiple distributor defendants. Companies selling pet bathtub products should note that both aesthetic and functional aspects of such products may be independently protectable and simultaneously asserted, raising the stakes of any FTO gap.
Dual-track IP enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Tan Grow, Inc. | Company | Pet product IP holder — asserting USD940285S, USD940286S, US10543957B2 & US10882662B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Link Future, Inc. | Company | Pet product distributors and retailers including Link Future, 3Q Mart, Sinowell, and VivohomeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | 3Q Mart Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Sinowell, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Vivohome, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Does | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alan C. Chen | Attorney | Counsel for Tan Grow, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Juo | Attorney | Counsel for Tan Grow, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rimon PC | Law Firm | Representing Tan Grow, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Thomas P. Howard LLC | Law Firm | Representing Tan Grow, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Byron E. Ma | Attorney | Counsel for Link Future, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy T. Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Link Future, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Buche & Associates PC | Law Firm | Representing Link Future, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ni, Wang & Massand PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Link Future, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict notation reflects a joint settlement notification rather than a judicial determination on the merits. Tan Grow and Vivohome jointly moved to vacate scheduled dates and file a stipulated final judgment, which is procedurally consistent with a fully negotiated resolution. No liability finding, damages award, or invalidity ruling is recorded. The scope of the settlement — and whether it binds the remaining defendants — is not discernible from the public docket at this stage.
USD940285S, USD940286S, US10543957B2 & US10882662B2 — Pet Bathtub Patents
The asserted portfolio includes two design patents — USD940285S (App. No. 29/688688) and USD940286S (App. No. 29/750222) — protecting the ornamental appearance of pet bathtub products, and two utility patents — US10543957B2 (App. No. 16/405984) and US10882662B2 (App. No. 16/041822) — protecting functional aspects of those products. The combination of design and utility protection in a single enforcement action is a deliberate strategy to maximise coverage across both aesthetic and functional product attributes.
In the pet product sector, where product differentiation often relies heavily on visual design and ergonomic function, holding both design and utility patents creates a formidable enforcement position. Competitors cannot simply alter appearance to avoid infringement if utility claims independently cover the functional architecture of the product — and vice versa. This portfolio structure is increasingly common among pet accessory brands seeking to defend market share against lower-cost distributors and marketplace sellers.
Should you run an FTO against USD940285S, USD940286S, US10543957B2 & US10882662B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing pet bathtub products in the US market should treat this four-patent portfolio as a material FTO consideration. The settlement outcome means no claim has been judicially narrowed or invalidated — all four patents remain enforceable in their issued form. Distributors operating on Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or similar platforms are particularly exposed given the multi-defendant filing pattern observed here.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the four asserted patents — including the two design patents — against your product specifications, identifying overlapping claim elements and potential design-around pathways. Eureka’s design patent comparison tools allow side-by-side ornamental analysis, while utility claim mapping highlights functional limitations that may differentiate your product from the asserted claims.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0940285S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Pet Product Design & Utility Patent Cases in C.D. Cal.
Explore comparable patent infringement cases involving pet product design and utility patents litigated in the Central District of California.
What this case signals for the pet product IP landscape
A four-patent enforcement strategy against multiple co-defendants signals an increasingly assertive IP posture in the pet product category.
Design + utility patent stacking raises infringement exposure
Tan Grow’s simultaneous assertion of two design patents and two utility patents against the same defendants is a textbook portfolio stacking approach. For pet product companies, this means a single product can face multiple independent infringement theories, making clearance and design-around more complex and costly.
Multi-defendant filings concentrate litigation pressure
Filing against Link Future, 3Q Mart, Sinowell, and Vivohome simultaneously is consistent with a strategy targeting a distribution chain or marketplace sellers. This approach forces multiple parties to share legal costs or settle independently, as appears to have occurred with Vivohome. Companies in e-commerce pet product channels should assess their IP exposure proactively.
Tan v Link — key questions answered
Tan Grow asserted four patents: design patents USD940285S and USD940286S, and utility patents US10543957B2 and US10882662B2, all directed to pet bathtub products. The case was filed in the Central District of California on November 11, 2022.
The case settled, with Tan Grow and Vivohome filing a joint notice in early 2025 requesting the court to vacate scheduled litigation dates and allow time to prepare a stipulated final judgment. The financial and licensing terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the public record.
Asserting design and utility patents simultaneously means a defendant must design around both the ornamental appearance and the functional architecture of the patented product. This dual-track strategy raises clearance complexity and increases settlement pressure, as a successful invalidity defence against one patent type does not dispose of the other.
Multi-defendant filings in patent cases often target a distribution chain or co-sellers of the same allegedly infringing product. Naming multiple defendants simultaneously concentrates litigation pressure and may encourage individual settlements, which appears consistent with Vivohome settling separately while the status of other defendants remains unclear from the public record.
No. A settlement does not constitute a merits ruling. All four patents — USD940285S, USD940286S, US10543957B2, and US10882662B2 — remain in force as issued. No court has ruled on validity, claim scope, or infringement, meaning the patents retain full enforceability and can be asserted in future actions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.