Twitch LLC v. Bote LLC: Inflatable Paddle Board Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Twitch LLC filed suit against Bote LLC in the Western District of Texas asserting two patents covering inflatable paddle board technology across more than 17 accused products. The case closed 308 days later with a dismissal with prejudice — and each side walking away bearing its own costs.
A bilateral exit: how Twitch and Bote resolved an inflatable board patent dispute
On 3 May 2024, Twitch LLC filed a patent infringement action against Bote LLC in the Western District of Texas before Judge Kathleen Cardone. The complaint centred on two US patents — US10479458B2 and US9862466B2 — both directed at inflatable paddle board technology. The accused products encompassed Bote’s entire Rackham Aero and Rover Aero inflatable board lines, as well as the Zeppelin Inflatable SUP, totalling more than 17 distinct product SKUs.
The case terminated on 7 March 2025, when the court granted a motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice filed by Twitch and co-movant Steamboat Paddlesports LLC. The parties had sought a stipulated dismissal with Bote, but received no response. When Bote also failed to oppose the formal motion by the local-rule deadline, Judge Cardone granted it as unopposed. A dismissal with prejudice forecloses Twitch from reasserting the same claims against Bote on the same patents in any future action.
The 308-day duration is consistent with a case that settled or reached a commercial resolution before substantive litigation milestones — no trial date or claim construction hearing appears in the public record. The mutual ‘own costs’ order, combined with Bote’s silence on the dismissal motion, suggests the parties reached an off-record understanding. The precise commercial terms, if any, remain unknown from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 308 days
308 days from filing to closure — below the median W.D. Tex. patent case lifecycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion ruling means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars any identical future claim
A dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41. Twitch and Steamboat cannot re-file the same patent claims against Bote for the same accused products in any federal court. The court granted the motion as unopposed under W.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-7(d)(2) after Bote failed to respond within the prescribed deadline — effectively a procedural rubber-stamp of the parties’ apparent agreement.
Permanent bar on re-filingTwitch exits cleanly — but permanently surrenders these claims against Bote
Twitch secured a clean exit with no adverse merits ruling. The patents US10479458B2 and US9862466B2 remain intact and enforceable against other parties. However, the with-prejudice nature of the dismissal means Twitch accepted a permanent bar on suing Bote again on these specific patents and products. This is consistent with a licensing deal or commercial settlement reached off the public record.
Patents survive; Bote claims closedBote obtains finality on Twitch’s claims — costs remain its own
Bote LLC secures certainty: Twitch’s infringement claims on US10479458B2 and US9862466B2 are extinguished with prejudice. The ‘own costs’ order means Bote bears its own legal fees, which suggests no fee-shifting outcome in either direction. Bote’s silence during the motion period may reflect a deliberate litigation posture consistent with having already reached a commercial resolution. No invalidity finding was made against either patent.
No fee award; no invalidity findingInflatable board IP risk persists for the wider watersports sector
The two asserted patents remain active and enforceable. Twitch’s willingness to assert them across 17+ SKUs signals an active licensing posture. Other inflatable paddle board and micro-skiff manufacturers in the SUP and watersports market should treat these patents as live enforcement risk. The dismissal offers Bote-specific finality but provides no sector-wide precedent on claim scope or validity — those questions were never adjudicated.
Active enforcement risk for SUP sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Twitch LLC | Company | Inflatable watercraft IP licensor — holder of US10479458B2 and US9862466B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bote, LLC | Company | Bote LLC — outdoor watersports brand selling inflatable paddle boards and micro skiffsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alaina Pak | Attorney | Counsel for Twitch LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael L. Krashin | Attorney | Counsel for Twitch LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Twitch LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Douglas A. Grady | Attorney | Counsel for Bote, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul Bruene | Attorney | Counsel for Bote, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tyler G. Doyle | Attorney | Counsel for Bote, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker & Hostetler, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bote, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Kathleen Cardone | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granted the dismissal as unopposed under W.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-7(d)(2) after Bote failed to respond within the prescribed deadline. Critically, the order dismisses ‘all claims’ with prejudice — covering both asserted patents and all accused products. The simultaneous denial of the Steamboat joinder and attorney withdrawal motions as moot confirms the court treated the dismissal as a full and final resolution. No substantive merits finding was made on infringement, validity, or claim scope.
US10479458B2 & US9862466B2 — Inflatable Paddle Board Technology
US10479458B2 (application US15/834473) and US9862466B2 (application US15/230435) both cover aspects of inflatable paddle board technology. The sequential application numbers suggest a continuation or continuation-in-part relationship, with the later ‘458 patent likely building on the earlier ‘466 patent’s disclosure. Both patents sit within the recreational watercraft space, protecting structural or manufacturing innovations in inflatable SUP design that Twitch asserts are embodied in Bote’s Rackham Aero and Rover Aero product lines.
The commercial reach of these patents is significant: Twitch was able to identify more than 17 distinct accused SKUs across Bote’s inflatable board catalogue. For a sector characterised by intense competition among direct-to-consumer SUP brands, patents protecting core construction methods or board architecture can function as powerful licensing tools. The fact that Twitch also appears to have coordinated with Steamboat Paddlesports as a co-plaintiff movant suggests the assertion may reflect a broader portfolio licensing programme targeting multiple manufacturers.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10479458B2 and US9862466B2?
Any company designing or selling inflatable stand-up paddle boards, inflatable micro-skiffs, or related air-filled watercraft should treat these two patents as active clearance risks. The breadth of accused products in this case — spanning 11-foot, 12-foot, and 12-foot-6 inflatable boards across multiple colour and configuration variants — suggests the patents’ independent claims are not narrowly written. Licensors with a portfolio of this type typically pursue multiple defendants sequentially.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claim structure of US10479458B2 and US9862466B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that could inform an IPR strategy, and surface related continuation filings in the same patent family that may represent additional exposure. Building an FTO analysis before you receive a demand letter is significantly more cost-effective than mounting a defence post-filing.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10479458B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Inflatable Watercraft Patent Cases in W.D. Texas and Related Courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving inflatable watercraft and SUP technology filed in the Western District of Texas and related federal courts.
What this case signals for the inflatable watersports IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit without merits ruling leaves patent risk unresolved for every other inflatable board manufacturer.
Both patents remain live enforcement tools against third parties
Neither US10479458B2 nor US9862466B2 was challenged on validity in this proceeding. The dismissal with prejudice binds only Twitch and Bote. Any other inflatable SUP or micro-skiff manufacturer operating in the same technology space faces an unchanged threat profile from these patents.
Mutual own-costs order limits read-across to other defendants
The absence of a fee award in either direction means there is no § 285 ‘exceptional case’ finding to signal litigation misconduct or patent weakness. Competitors cannot rely on this outcome to argue Twitch’s claims lack merit — the case closed on procedural grounds, not substance.
Twitch v Bote — key questions answered
Twitch LLC asserted two patents: US10479458B2 (application no. US15/834473) and US9862466B2 (application no. US15/230435), both directed at inflatable paddle board technology. The accused products included Bote’s Rackham Aero and Rover Aero inflatable board and micro-skiff lines, totalling more than 17 distinct SKUs.
Twitch LLC and co-movant Steamboat Paddlesports LLC filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice after Bote failed to respond to a proposed stipulation. When Bote also did not oppose the motion by the local rule deadline, Judge Cardone granted it as unopposed. A dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final adjudication — Twitch cannot reassert the same claims against Bote on these patents in any future proceeding.
Steamboat Paddlesports LLC appears as a co-movant on the motion to dismiss with prejudice and had sought to be joined as a plaintiff in the case. This suggests a potential co-ownership, licensing, or enforcement-coordination arrangement with Twitch LLC over the two asserted inflatable paddle board patents. The joinder motion was ultimately denied as moot when the case was dismissed.
No. Judge Cardone ordered that all parties shall pay their own costs and fees. There was no § 285 exceptional case finding, no fee-shifting order, and no sanctions. The symmetric cost allocation is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested outcome on the merits.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice only binds Twitch and Bote with respect to the claims asserted in this case. Neither patent was ruled invalid or unenforceable, and no claim construction was issued. Both patents remain active and can be asserted against other parties in the inflatable watercraft and SUP sector.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.