Think Products v. Microsoft: Voluntary Dismissal After 308 Days
Think Products, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Microsoft Co. in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting two patents covering docking station and laptop riser technology against the SD7000 Surface Pro Docking Station and SmartView Organizing Laptop Riser. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims after 308 days, with the specific terms not disclosed in the available record.
Docking station patent suit against Microsoft ends in voluntary dismissal
Think Products, Inc. filed suit against Microsoft Co. on 28 September 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins. The complaint asserted two patents — US10704299B2 and US11313155B2 — against Microsoft's SD7000 Surface Pro Docking Station and SmartView Organizing Laptop Riser products in an infringement action.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order states that Think Products, Inc., pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissed all claims asserted in this action with prejudice. The specific terms underlying the dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
The case resolved in 308 days, before any substantive merits ruling entered the public record. What, if anything, drove the parties toward this resolution — including any discussions between counsel — is not reflected in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 308 days
308 days from filing to voluntary dismissal in N.D. Illinois
US10704299B2 & US11313155B2 — Docking Station and Laptop Riser Technology
Any company designing, sourcing, or distributing docking stations, laptop risers, or related peripheral accessories in the US market should assess exposure against US10704299B2 and US11313155B2. Neither patent was invalidated or disclaimed in this proceeding. Think Products demonstrated willingness to assert these patents against a major OEM, which suggests enforcement intent is credible regardless of how this specific case resolved.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a unilateral plaintiff mechanism available before the defendant serves a responsive pleading, and records the dismissal as 'with prejudice.' No merits finding on infringement, validity, or damages was entered by the court. The patents-in-suit retain full legal force, and neither party received a substantive ruling that could bind future proceedings involving third parties.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal: what it means
The plaintiff filed a unilateral notice of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a procedural mechanism available before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The docket order records the dismissal as being 'with prejudice,' meaning the plaintiff cannot refile the same claims. The recorded Basis of Termination field is 'Voluntary dismissal.' Both are reported here as stated in the record.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) noticeThe prejudice distinction matters — and the record is partially silent
A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars refiling the same claims; one without prejudice leaves the door open. The verdict text records a dismissal 'with prejudice.' However, the Basis of Termination field records only 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying either qualifier. Both entries are reported here; readers should consult the full docket for authoritative confirmation.
Finality depends on prejudice qualifierThink Products exits without a court judgment on the merits
By dismissing voluntarily, Think Products obtained no damages award, injunction, or court finding of infringement. To the extent the dismissal is with prejudice as stated in the order text, Think Products' ability to reassert US10704299B2 and US11313155B2 against Microsoft for the same products would be foreclosed. The specific terms driving this decision are not disclosed in the available record.
No merits adjudicationMicrosoft avoids a merits ruling but patents remain in force
Microsoft obtained dismissal of all claims without any court determination of non-infringement or invalidity. The asserted patents — US10704299B2 and US11313155B2 — remain issued and enforceable. Microsoft received no declaratory judgment on validity or infringement scope. Third parties operating in the docking station and laptop riser space cannot rely on this outcome as a precedent on the merits.
Patents remain live and enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Think Products, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Microsoft, Co. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edwin D. Schindler | Attorney | Counsel for Think Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jay L. Dolgin | Attorney | Counsel for Think Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dolgin Law Group | Law Firm | Representing Think Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Edwin D. Schindler, Patent Attorney | Law Firm | Representing Think Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gwen Hochman Stewart | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Julia G. Tabat | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard A. Cederoth | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sidley Austin LLP | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the docking station and laptop peripheral IP space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from Think Products v. Microsoft: portfolio activity, filing trends, and white-space opportunities in the docking and laptop riser technology domain.
Think Products' docking and riser patent portfolio activity
Think Products asserted two related-lineage patents against Microsoft's Surface accessories. Their application numbers — US16/595241 and US16/920719 — suggest a continuation or family strategy in the docking and riser space. Mapping Think Products' full portfolio may reveal additional pending or issued patents covering adjacent configurations that have not yet been asserted.
Portfolio depth: continuation riskPatent filing trends in docking station and laptop riser design
The docking station and laptop riser category is attracting IP filings from both specialist accessory makers and major OEMs. Tracking filing trends in this space — particularly around form factor, connectivity, and adjustable riser mechanisms — can surface competitive IP activity early and inform design-around strategies for product teams.
Filing trends: docking accessoriesMicrosoft's patent position in the Surface peripheral ecosystem
Microsoft has its own significant patent portfolio in the Surface device and accessory space, including docking and connectivity technology. Understanding Microsoft's own IP filings around the SD7000 Surface Pro Docking Station and related Surface accessories may reveal defensive moats and signal where the company is investing in next-generation peripheral design.
Microsoft: Surface accessory IPAdjacent R&D white space near docking and riser patent claims
The asserted patents focus on docking station and laptop riser configurations. Adjacent white space may exist in areas such as modular docking with integrated cable management, wireless charging integration in riser form factors, or ergonomic adjustment mechanisms not yet densely patented. An Eureka landscape search can surface low-density claim zones for R&D targeting.
White space: modular riser designSimilar patent infringement cases: docking station and peripheral device IP
Cases in the Northern District of Illinois and elsewhere involving patent assertions against docking stations, laptop accessories, and peripheral device form factors.
What this case signals for the docking station and peripheral IP landscape
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal against a major hardware defendant leaves enforcement questions open and the patents in play.
Issued patents survive: US10704299B2 and US11313155B2 remain enforceable
Neither asserted patent was adjudicated, cancelled, or disclaimed. Companies developing or sourcing docking station and laptop riser products should treat both patents as live risk vectors. An FTO analysis against these two US patents is warranted before committing to product designs in this space.
Rule 41 exits before answer can signal strategic recalibration
A plaintiff dismissal before the defendant even answers — after 308 days — is consistent with a variety of strategic scenarios: licensing resolution, litigation cost calculus, or portfolio redeployment. The specific driver is not in the public record. IP counsel tracking Think Products' enforcement posture should monitor future filings against other defendants in the peripheral device sector.
Think v Microsoft — key questions answered
Think Products asserted US10704299B2 (application US16/595241) and US11313155B2 (application US16/920719) in a patent infringement action filed in the Northern District of Illinois on 28 September 2022. The accused products were Microsoft's SD7000 Surface Pro Docking Station and SmartView Organizing Laptop Riser.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order states that Think Products dismissed all claims with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The case closed on 2 August 2023, approximately 308 days after filing. No merits ruling was entered. The specific terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Yes. Neither patent was invalidated, cancelled, or disclaimed in this proceeding. No court ruling on infringement or validity was entered. Both patents remain issued and enforceable. Third parties operating in the docking station and laptop riser space cannot rely on this case as precedent on validity or non-infringement.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. If filed with prejudice, as stated in the docket order here, the plaintiff is barred from refiling the same claims. No court determination on the merits is made. The patents remain valid and enforceable unless separately challenged.
Think Products was represented by Dolgin Law Group and Edwin D. Schindler, Patent Attorney, with counsel Edwin D. Schindler and Jay L. Dolgin. Microsoft was represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Sidley Austin LLP, with counsel Gwen Hochman Stewart, Julia G. Tabat, and Richard A. Cederoth, before Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins in the Northern District of Illinois.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.