Book a demo
Thousand Oaks Barrel Co. v. Digital Distillery — Cocktail Smoker Patent Dispute | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:23-cv-03412
FiledDec 2023
ClosedJan 2024
Patent Litigation

Thousand Oaks Barrel Co. v. Digital Distillery: Cocktail Smoker Patent Dismissed in 17 Days

Thousand Oaks Barrel Co. asserted US11744256B2 — a patent covering devices that impart smoked flavors to cocktails and food — against Digital Distillery and associated entities in Colorado federal court. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action just 17 days after filing, before the defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment.

Resolution time
17days
Case duration — 17 days from filing to voluntary dismissal, well under the typical patent case lifecycle
Patents asserted
1
US11744256B2 — Foghat Cocktail Smoker, device for imparting smoked flavors to beverages and food
Outcome
Voluntary dismissal
Without prejudice — Thousand Oaks Barrel Co. may refile the same claims in future proceedings
Cost ruling
N/A
No costs order recorded — defendant had not yet appeared when dismissal was filed
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Ultra-short voluntary dismissal in the cocktail smoker patent space

On 22 December 2023, Thousand Oaks Barrel Co., LLC — a company associated with the Foghat Cocktail Smoker product — filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for Colorado. The named defendants were a broad class of partnerships, companies, and unincorporated associations, together with Digital Distillery, LLC as a specifically identified other defendant. The asserted patent, US11744256B2, covers smoker devices designed to impart smoked flavors to cocktails and food — a rapidly growing consumer category.

The case lasted only 17 days. On 8 January 2024, the plaintiff filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order where the defendant has neither answered nor filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning Thousand Oaks Barrel Co. retains the legal right to bring the same infringement claims against the same or related defendants at a later time.

A resolution of this speed — 17 days — is consistent with pre-litigation settlement discussions, a licensing agreement reached off-docket, or a tactical decision to refile in a different venue or against a reconstituted defendant group. Because the dismissal is voluntary and without prejudice, the public record is silent on the underlying commercial terms, if any. No defendant counsel was recorded, suggesting the defendant had not formally engaged before the dismissal was filed.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:23-cv-03412
CourtColorado
Judge/
FiledDecember 22, 2023
ClosedJanuary 8, 2024
Duration17 days
OutcomeVoluntary dismissal
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisVoluntary dismissal
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Colorado District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to resolution in 17 days

Case duration — 17 days from filing to voluntary dismissal, well under the typical patent case lifecycle

Case timeline: Complaint filed May 13 2025, DEC–JAN — 17 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Thousand Oaks Barrel Co., LLC v The Partnerships, Companies, and Unincorporated Associations from filing to voluntary dismissal. Source: PACER, Colorado District Court. DEC 22 2023 Complaint filed DEC–JAN 2023 Pre-trial proceedings JAN 8 2024 Dismissed voluntary 17 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

What the voluntary dismissal without prejudice means for each party

Legal mechanism

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): Dismissal as of right

Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss a case without a court order — and without the defendant’s consent — if the defendant has not yet answered or moved for summary judgment. Here, no defendant answer or motion was recorded, so the plaintiff exercised this right unilaterally. The court took no substantive action on the merits.

No court order required
Prejudice analysis

Without prejudice: what the public record does and does not tell us

A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would permanently bar those claims. The verdict in this case specifies ‘without prejudice’, so Thousand Oaks Barrel Co. retains its enforcement options. However, the public record does not disclose whether any private settlement, license, or other commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal.

Refiling rights preserved
Defendant posture

Defendant had not appeared — no contested merits

The dismissal notice expressly states that the defendant had neither answered nor filed a motion for summary judgment. No defendant law firm or agent is recorded on the docket. This suggests the dismissal occurred before Digital Distillery, LLC formally engaged with the litigation, which is consistent with very early resolution — whether through negotiation, warning letter response, or tactical withdrawal by the plaintiff.

Pre-answer dismissal
Defendant class structure

Broad defendant class typical of e-commerce enforcement actions

The primary defendant is named as ‘The Partnerships, Companies, and Unincorporated Associations’ — a placeholder structure commonly used in multi-defendant e-commerce or marketplace infringement suits, where the full roster of accused sellers is appended in an exhibit. Digital Distillery, LLC appears as a specifically named ‘other defendant’. This structure suggests the action may have targeted multiple online sellers simultaneously.

Multi-seller enforcement pattern
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:23-cv-03412 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffThousand Oaks Barrel Co., LLCCompanyCocktail smoking device brand — holder of US11744256B2 (Foghat Cocktail Smoker)Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Partnerships, Companies, and Unincorporated AssociationsCompanyDigital Distillery, LLC — defendant in cocktail smoker patent infringement actionSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJoseph J. ZitoAttorneyCounsel for Thousand Oaks Barrel Co., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge /Chief JudgeColorado District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Stipulation of dismissal — official text

“Plaintiff hereby voluntarily dismisses the above action against the Defendant JD720, LLC without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendant has neither answered nor filed a motion for summary judgement”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:23-cv-03412, Colorado District Court · Filed January 8, 2024

The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming this was a unilateral plaintiff action requiring no judicial approval. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ designation means no claim preclusion attaches — Thousand Oaks Barrel Co. can refile the identical infringement claims against Digital Distillery or related parties. The phrase ‘has neither answered nor filed a motion for summary judgment’ is a procedural prerequisite for this rule, not a commentary on the merits. No substantive finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope was made.

PACER case 1:23-cv-03412 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US11744256B2 — Cocktail and food smoking device patent

Publication No.US11744256B2
Application No.US17/100797
Patent details
AssigneeThousand Oaks Barrel Co., LLC
ProductFoghat Cocktail Smoker — smoked flavor infusion device for cocktails and food
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionDecember 22, 2023

US11744256B2 (application number US17/100797) protects a device for imparting smoked flavors to cocktail beverages and food — the technology category commercialised by Thousand Oaks Barrel Co. under the ‘Foghat Cocktail Smoker’ brand. The patent sits at the intersection of consumer kitchen gadgets and craft cocktail equipment, a category that has seen strong retail growth driven by home bartending trends. The patent provides IP coverage for the core smoking mechanism used in this product class.

In a fragmented consumer gadget market served by numerous private-label and white-label manufacturers, a granted utility patent such as US11744256B2 can function as a significant competitive moat. The breadth of the defendant class named in this litigation — encompassing unincorporated associations and multiple companies — suggests the patent holder views its claims as covering a wide range of commercially available cocktail smoker products. Any company sourcing, manufacturing, or distributing similar devices should treat this patent as a primary risk vector.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your cocktail smoker product be cleared against US11744256B2?

If your company designs, imports, private-labels, or sells devices that impart smoke flavors to beverages or food — including cocktail smoker kits, tabletop smoking guns, or infusion domes — US11744256B2 is a direct FTO priority. This case demonstrates the patent holder’s willingness to file federal infringement actions, and the without-prejudice dismissal means enforcement is far from over. In-house IP counsel and product managers should commission a claim-level FTO analysis before this product category appears in your next catalogue.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US11744256B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may bear on validity, and flag any design-around opportunities. Ongoing claim monitoring will alert your team if continuations or related applications publish — relevant here because the application series (US17/100797) may support further prosecution. Proactive monitoring is far less costly than defending a federal infringement complaint.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11744256B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar cocktail smoker and consumer kitchen gadget patent infringement cases

PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Thousand Oaks Barrel Co., LLC patent enforcement history, Colorado case history, Thousand Oaks Barrel Co., LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Cocktail smoker IP casesRule 41 quick dismissalsMulti-seller e-commerce suitsConsumer gadget patent actions
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the cocktail smoker IP landscape

A 17-day lifecycle and without-prejudice dismissal in a growing consumer gadget category warrants close attention from product teams and IP counsel.

US11744256B2 remains active and enforceable after dismissal

Because the case was dismissed without prejudice and with no merits ruling, US11744256B2 has not been adjudicated, narrowed, or invalidated. Thousand Oaks Barrel Co. retains full enforcement rights. Competitors and private-label sellers in the cocktail smoker space should treat this patent as a live risk — the dismissal resolves nothing about its scope or validity.

The broad defendant class structure signals a scalable enforcement campaign

Using a placeholder multi-defendant class is a recognised tactic for sweeping in numerous online marketplace sellers in a single complaint. This case may represent one action in a broader enforcement programme. Product teams selling cocktail smoker devices through Amazon, Shopify, or similar channels should audit their exposure to US11744256B2 now, not after receiving a complaint.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Includes sector IP trends, Judge Treadwell’s case history, and FTO risk assessment for the truck equipment space
Licensing vs. litigation signalVenue refile risk analysisPlaintiff enforcement frequency
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Thousand v The — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Run your own FTO analysis on US11744256B2

This patent is active and enforcement is unresolved. Use PatSnap Eureka to map claims against your product, monitor the application family for continuations, and track future litigation filings by this plaintiff.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.