Twist It Up v. Annie International: TWIST & PIK Patent Dispute Settled
Twist It Up, Inc. filed suit against Annie International, Inc. in the Central District of California asserting two patents covering its TWIST & PIK hair styling tool. After 538 days of litigation, the parties reached a confidential settlement and stipulated to dismissal with prejudice — each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
Hair Tool IP Battle Ends in Confidential Settlement After 18 Months
Twist It Up, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on April 3, 2024 in the Central District of California against Annie International, Inc. — a well-established beauty accessories supplier — and unnamed Doe defendants. The lawsuit centered on two issued U.S. patents, US10368623B2 and US10799006B2, both directed to hair styling tool technology embodied in Twist It Up’s TWIST & PIK product. The complaint alleged that Annie International’s competing products infringed one or both patents.
The case closed on September 23, 2025 via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), reflecting a negotiated settlement between the parties. Dismissal with prejudice means neither party can reliigate the same claims arising from these patents against each other in this action. The parties agreed that each would bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, a symmetrical cost arrangement that is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a clear litigation winner.
The 538-day duration — roughly 18 months — suggests the parties engaged in meaningful discovery or claim construction proceedings before reaching resolution, though the specific terms of the underlying settlement agreement remain confidential and are not disclosed in the public record. What drove the ultimate settlement is unknown, but the with-prejudice dismissal and mutual cost-bearing arrangement typically signals a commercially negotiated outcome rather than capitulation by either side. The Doe defendants were also resolved without separate public filings.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 538 days
538 days — above median for settled patent cases in C.D. Cal., suggesting substantive negotiation
Settled with prejudice: what the stipulated dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires both parties’ consent and permanently bars re-filing of the same claims. Unlike a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, this closure is final on the merits for purposes of res judicata. It is the standard vehicle for memorialising a patent settlement in federal court without disclosing financial terms.
Permanent bar on re-filingTwist It Up secures settlement — patent validity preserved
Because the dismissal is with prejudice and reflects a settlement, Twist It Up’s patents US10368623B2 and US10799006B2 were never adjudicated invalid or unenforceable. The patents remain in force and can be asserted against other parties. Any licensing, royalty, or injunctive relief terms agreed privately are not disclosed in the public record.
Patents remain enforceableAnnie International exits litigation without invalidity finding
Annie International avoided a court ruling on infringement or damages, consistent with a negotiated exit. The with-prejudice dismissal protects Annie International from Twist It Up relitigating these specific claims, but does not create a finding that Annie’s products were non-infringing. Private settlement terms — including any product design-around obligations — are not publicly available.
No infringement adjudicationConfidential settlement leaves hair tool IP landscape uncertain
With no claim construction order or invalidity ruling on record, third-party competitors in the hair styling accessories space face continuing uncertainty about the scope of Twist It Up’s two patents. The with-prejudice settlement signals Twist It Up is willing to enforce its IP portfolio actively. Companies selling similar twist-and-pick styling tools should consider FTO analysis against both asserted patents.
FTO review advised for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Twist It Up, Inc. | Company | Hair styling tool innovator — holder of US10368623B2 and US10799006B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Annie International, Inc. | Company | Beauty accessories manufacturer and distributor — Annie International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Does | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John D. Tran | Attorney | Counsel for Twist It Up, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rosalind Thuy Ong | Attorney | Counsel for Twist It Up, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rhema Law Group PC | Law Firm | Representing Twist It Up, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Francis Wong | Attorney | Counsel for Annie International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lan C. Dang | Attorney | Counsel for Annie International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | R. Joseph Trojan | Attorney | Counsel for Annie International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Trojan Law Offices | Law Firm | Representing Annie International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring both parties’ signatures — distinguishing it from a unilateral voluntary dismissal. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: it operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, foreclosing future litigation on these patent claims between these parties. The symmetrical fee provision, where each party bears its own costs, is characteristic of a commercially negotiated settlement rather than a concession of liability by either side.
US10368623B2 & US10799006B2 — TWIST & PIK Hair Styling Tool Patents
US10368623B2 (Application No. US15/819094) and US10799006B2 (Application No. US16/442218) both cover innovations in hair styling tool technology associated with Twist It Up’s TWIST & PIK product — a tool designed for twisting and picking hair in a single ergonomic implement. The sequential application numbers suggest US10799006B2 is a continuation or improvement patent filed after the base patent, a common portfolio strategy to extend protection as products evolve and to cover manufacturing or design variations.
In the specialty hair accessories segment, utility patents on hand-held styling tools can provide meaningful competitive barriers, particularly when the protected design addresses a functional need underserved by commodity products. The assertion of two related patents against Annie International — a major beauty accessories distributor — suggests Twist It Up views its IP as a commercial differentiator. For competitors developing twist-style or combination pick-and-twist tools, both patents represent active enforcement risk, and neither has been adjudicated invalid in this or any known public proceeding.
Should you run an FTO against US10368623B2 and US10799006B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing hair styling tools that combine twisting and picking functionality should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against both Twist It Up patents before product launch or expansion. Annie International’s decision to settle — rather than pursue invalidity through IPR or district court proceedings — leaves these patents legally intact and presumptively valid, raising the bar for competitors who might face similar enforcement.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10368623B2 and US10799006B2 against your product specifications, flag prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and identify design-around opportunities. For R&D teams working on hair tool innovations, Eureka’s patent landscape analysis can surface related filings by Twist It Up and monitor for new continuation applications that might extend portfolio coverage into adjacent product configurations.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10368623B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Hair Accessory & Beauty Tool Patent Cases in C.D. California
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving hair styling and beauty accessories tools litigated in the Central District of California.
What this case signals for the hair accessories IP landscape
A confidential settlement after 18 months sends a clear enforcement signal in the specialty hair tool category.
With-prejudice settlement confirms Twist It Up’s enforcement posture
Pursuing litigation for 538 days before settling — rather than filing and quickly dropping — suggests Twist It Up’s counsel built a substantive infringement case. Patent holders in the beauty accessories sector should note that niche hair tool patents are being actively enforced in C.D. California, a plaintiff-friendly venue for IP disputes.
Two-patent assertion strengthens leverage in settlement negotiations
Asserting both US10368623B2 and US10799006B2 simultaneously creates overlapping claim coverage that is harder for a defendant to design around entirely. Competitors evaluating product launches in the twist-style hair tool segment should conduct FTO searches against both patents before commercialisation.
Twist v Annie — key questions answered
Twist It Up asserted two patents: US10368623B2 (Application No. US15/819094) and US10799006B2 (Application No. US16/442218). Both relate to hair styling tool technology embodied in Twist It Up’s TWIST & PIK product and were asserted in the Central District of California.
The case was resolved through a confidential settlement memorialised by a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), filed September 23, 2025. Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The financial terms of the settlement are not publicly disclosed.
Dismissal with prejudice means Twist It Up cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Annie International. Crucially, it does not invalidate the patents — both remain in force and enforceable against other third parties. No court adjudicated the patents invalid, obvious, or unenforceable.
The with-prejudice dismissal bars Twist It Up from reasserting the same claims against Annie International arising from the conduct at issue in this action. However, new infringing acts occurring after the settlement date could potentially give rise to a new cause of action depending on the settlement agreement’s terms, which are confidential.
The case lasted 538 days, from filing on April 3, 2024 to closure on September 23, 2025 — approximately 18 months. This duration is above the median for settled patent cases and suggests the parties engaged in substantive litigation activity, potentially including discovery or early claim construction proceedings, before reaching a negotiated resolution.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.