The Little Catholic v. Specialized Top Advisory Services: Lourdes Necklace Design Patent Settled
The Little Catholic, LLC brought a design patent infringement action in the Southern District of Florida against Specialized Top Advisory Services Inc., asserting USD1012750S covering a Gold Vermeil Blue Enamel Lourdes Necklace with White Crystals. The parties reached a private settlement 136 days after filing, with a court-ordered stipulation of dismissal required within 30 days of the July 23, 2025 notice.
Lourdes Necklace Design Patent Dispute Reaches Private Settlement in Florida
The Little Catholic, LLC filed this design patent infringement action on March 11, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 0:25-cv-60467). The plaintiff asserted U.S. Design Patent USD1012750S, which covers the ornamental design of a Gold Vermeil Blue Enamel Lourdes Necklace with White Crystals — a devotional jewelry product. The defendant, Specialized Top Advisory Services Inc., was alleged to have infringed that registered design.
On July 23, 2025, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement indicating that all parties had reached an agreement. The court responded by administratively closing the case and directing the parties to file a Rule 41(a) stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties within 30 days. All pending motions were denied as moot. The settlement terms are confidential and no financial or licensing details appear in the public record.
The 136-day timeline from filing to settlement notice is relatively compact for federal IP litigation, suggesting the parties may have reached agreement without extensive motion practice or discovery disputes. What drove the resolution — whether licensing, a design modification undertaking, or a payment — is not discernible from the public docket. The absence of a merits ruling leaves the validity and scope of USD1012750S untested by the court.
Filing to Case Settled in 136 days
136 days to settlement — relatively swift resolution for a district court IP dispute
Case settled: what the resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a) stipulated dismissal triggered by settlement notice
When parties notify the court of a settlement, the judge typically orders an administrative closure and directs a Rule 41(a) stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties. This mechanism formally ends the litigation without a merits ruling. The court also warned that failure to file within 30 days would result in dismissal and loss of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement — a standard incentive to formalise the agreement promptly.
No merits rulingWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Settled,’ but the court order does not specify whether the anticipated Rule 41(a) stipulation will be with or without prejudice. Settlements are commonly documented as with prejudice — permanently barring re-filing of the same claims — but this cannot be confirmed from the docket. Practitioners should note that the distinction materially affects whether The Little Catholic could reassert USD1012750S against the same defendant in future.
Prejudice terms unconfirmedThe Little Catholic secures resolution without litigating to judgment
Settling at this stage allows The Little Catholic to avoid the cost and uncertainty of a full design patent infringement trial, including the Gorham test for substantial similarity. The patent USD1012750S remains unchallenged on validity — no inter partes review or invalidity counterclaim appears to have been resolved — which preserves the design registration’s enforceability against future infringers in the devotional jewelry market.
Patent validity preservedSpecialized Top Advisory exits without an adverse infringement finding
By settling, Specialized Top Advisory Services avoids a court finding of design patent infringement, which would carry damages exposure under 35 U.S.C. § 289 (total profits on infringing articles) and potentially enhanced damages. However, settlement terms — including any product design changes, royalty obligations, or payments — are confidential. The absence of a public finding provides some reputational benefit but does not resolve the underlying design freedom-to-operate question.
No infringement findingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | The Little Catholic, LLC | Company | Devotional jewelry brand — holder of design patent USD1012750S (Lourdes Necklace)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Specialized Top Advisory Services Inc. | Company | Specialized Top Advisory Services Inc. — accused of infringing USD1012750S ornamental jewelry designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Emily Anne Brandenburg | Attorney | Counsel for The Little Catholic, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Scott Nelles | Attorney | Counsel for The Little Catholic, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Johnson & Martin PA | Law Firm | Representing The Little Catholic, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Kearney Firm, APC | Law Firm | Representing The Little Catholic, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deborah S. Mallgrave | Attorney | Counsel for Specialized Top Advisory Services Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Geoffrey Lottenberg | Attorney | Counsel for Specialized Top Advisory Services Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jose L. Patino | Attorney | Counsel for Specialized Top Advisory Services Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Berger Singerman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Specialized Top Advisory Services Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Buchalter, APC | Law Firm | Representing Specialized Top Advisory Services Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a standard administrative settlement procedure: upon receipt of a plaintiff’s notice of settlement, the judge administratively closed the case and directed the parties to file a Rule 41(a) stipulation of dismissal within 30 days. Critically, the order does not adjudicate infringement or validity of USD1012750S and imposes no damages award. The warning that the court ‘will be divested of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement’ if the stipulation is not timely filed is a routine mechanism to incentivise prompt formalisation of confidential settlement terms.
USD1012750S — Ornamental Design for a Lourdes Devotional Necklace
USD1012750S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a Gold Vermeil Blue Enamel Lourdes Necklace with White Crystals. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of a manufactured article — not any functional or technical innovation. The application number US29/788404 indicates it was filed under the standard design patent track. Protection covers the specific visual design as depicted in the patent drawings, assessed under the Gorham substantial similarity test from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
In the devotional and religious jewelry sector, design patents are a primary IP tool because the value proposition is almost entirely aesthetic and brand-driven. USD1012750S gives The Little Catholic a legally enforceable monopoly over the specific ornamental design of this Lourdes necklace, enabling enforcement against retailers, importers, or manufacturers offering visually similar products. Given the global sourcing patterns common in affordable jewelry, this patent is strategically relevant to any brand or distributor sourcing Marian or Lourdes-themed jewelry designs for the U.S. market.
Should you run an FTO against USD1012750S before launching a Lourdes necklace design?
Any brand, retailer, or importer commercialising Gold Vermeil or enamel Lourdes-themed necklaces with crystal embellishment in the U.S. market should assess clearance against USD1012750S. The design patent’s scope is determined by the drawings — even minor visual similarities may trigger liability under the ordinary observer test. This case demonstrates that The Little Catholic is prepared to enforce the patent in federal court, and § 289 total-profits exposure makes infringement financially significant even for lower-volume products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual and claim scope of USD1012750S against your product designs, identify related design patent families in the devotional jewelry space, and flag co-pending applications that may expand the IP perimeter. For product teams and sourcing managers in the religious accessories category, a structured freedom-to-operate review before launch is materially lower cost than defending a federal infringement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1012750S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Infringement Cases: Jewelry & Ornamental Accessories
Cases involving ornamental jewelry design patents litigated in U.S. district courts, including the Southern District of Florida, with comparable settlement or infringement outcomes.
What this case signals for the devotional jewelry design IP landscape
A swift settlement in a niche design patent dispute reinforces that ornamental jewelry designs carry enforceable litigation leverage.
Design patents in niche markets carry outsized enforcement leverage
USD1012750S covers a highly specific devotional jewelry design. In niche markets — religious, artisanal, or commemorative goods — competitors may have limited design alternatives, making design patents particularly powerful. A swift settlement here is consistent with a defendant facing limited design-around options and significant § 289 total-profits exposure.
Early settlement preserves patent validity for future enforcement
Because the case settled before any merits ruling, USD1012750S was never subjected to judicial validity scrutiny. This means The Little Catholic retains a clean, court-untested design registration — strengthening its position in any future enforcement action against a different infringer in the devotional or religious jewelry category.
The v Specialized — key questions answered
USD1012750S is a U.S. design patent (application no. US29/788404) covering the ornamental design of a Gold Vermeil Blue Enamel Lourdes Necklace with White Crystals. It protects the specific visual appearance of the article as depicted in the patent drawings, not any functional characteristic. In this case, The Little Catholic, LLC asserted it against Specialized Top Advisory Services Inc. in the Southern District of Florida.
The parties filed a Notice of Settlement on July 23, 2025 — 136 days after the case was filed. The court administratively closed the case and directed the parties to file a Rule 41(a) stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties within 30 days. The settlement terms are confidential. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal will be with or without prejudice.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent infringer may be liable for the infringer’s total profits attributable to the infringing article — not merely a reasonable royalty. This total-profits remedy can produce significant exposure for jewelry products with strong retail margins, even where the accused product represents a small share of the defendant’s overall business. This framework typically creates strong settlement incentives for accused infringers.
No. Because the case settled before any merits ruling, USD1012750S was never subjected to judicial scrutiny on validity or infringement scope. The design patent remains in force and unchallenged by court ruling. This means The Little Catholic retains full enforceability of the registration and could assert it against different accused infringers without any adverse precedent from this litigation.
The Little Catholic, LLC was represented by Johnson & Martin PA and The Kearney Firm, APC, with attorneys Emily Anne Brandenburg and Matthew Scott Nelles on record. Specialized Top Advisory Services Inc. was represented by Berger Singerman LLP and Buchalter, APC, with attorneys Deborah S. Mallgrave, Geoffrey Lottenberg, and Jose L. Patino listed as counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.