Umbra Inc. v. Mhm Inc.: Design Patent Dispute Over Glass Floating Frame Settled
Umbra, Inc. sued Mhm, Inc. in the Central District of California alleging infringement of design patent USD0731799S, covering a Glass Floating Frame for Pressed Flowers. The parties reached a confidential settlement and jointly stipulated to dismiss the action with prejudice after 382 days of litigation.
Design Patent Infringement Settled After Over a Year of Litigation
Umbra, Inc. filed suit against Mhm, Inc. on September 8, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asserting infringement of design patent USD0731799S (application no. US29/491581). The patent covers the ornamental design of a Glass Floating Frame for Pressed Flowers — a consumer home décor product. Umbra was represented by Brown Rudnick LLP and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo PC, while Mhm, Inc. retained Bishop Diehl and Lee, Ltd. and Puritan Law.
The case closed on September 24, 2024, after 382 days, when both parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The dismissal with prejudice reflects that the parties reached a binding settlement agreement, the specific terms of which remain confidential. A dismissal with prejudice bars Umbra from reasserting the same claims against Mhm in future proceedings, suggesting the settlement provided Umbra with meaningful resolution of its infringement concerns.
At 382 days, the case resolved before any publicly reported Markman hearing or trial, which is consistent with settlement-driven timelines in design patent disputes in the Central District. The confidential nature of the settlement means the financial terms, licensing arrangements, or any design changes agreed upon by Mhm are not part of the public record. What drove settlement at this stage — whether claim construction risk, litigation cost, or commercial negotiation — cannot be confirmed from available filings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 382 days
382 days — above the median for design patent settlements in C.D. Cal.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the settlement resolution means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice following settlement
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a signed stipulation from all parties and permanently extinguishes the claims. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, this ruling cannot be reopened. It signals that the parties reached a binding settlement agreement, using the joint stipulation as the procedural vehicle to close the case on the docket.
Permanent bar on re-filingUmbra secures finality — and likely meaningful relief
A with-prejudice dismissal following a stated settlement agreement typically signals that the plaintiff obtained some form of commercial resolution — whether a licensing fee, royalty arrangement, or a commitment by the defendant to cease sales. Umbra retains its design patent USD0731799S in full force. The settlement does not invalidate or limit the patent’s enforceability against third parties.
Patent survives; terms confidentialMhm avoids adjudicated infringement finding
Mhm, Inc. avoids a court-entered infringement judgment, which would carry reputational and precedential risks. Settlement rather than a verdict means no public finding of copying or willful infringement. However, the with-prejudice nature confirms Mhm agreed to binding terms — which may include design modifications, royalty obligations, or cessation of the accused product line. The precise obligations are not public.
No merits adjudicationDesign patent enforcement in home décor remains commercially viable
This case is consistent with a broader pattern of design patent holders in consumer goods using litigation to enforce ornamental design rights against competing products. The willingness of both parties to reach settlement — and to formalise it with a with-prejudice dismissal — suggests design patent assertions in this product category carry sufficient credibility to compel resolution. Competitors selling similar glass frame products should treat active design patents as commercially enforceable.
Design patent enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Umbra, Inc. | Company | Consumer home décor brand — holder of design patent USD0731799S for a Glass Floating FrameSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Mhm, Inc. | Company | Mhm, Inc. — accused of infringing Umbra’s ornamental glass floating frame design.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew D. Skale | Attorney | Counsel for Umbra, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Arameh Zargham O’Boyle | Attorney | Counsel for Umbra, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Arjun Sivakumar | Attorney | Counsel for Umbra, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Harold S. Laidlaw | Attorney | Counsel for Umbra, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael R. Graif | Attorney | Counsel for Umbra, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Brown Rudnick LLP | Law Firm | Representing Umbra, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo PC | Law Firm | Representing Umbra, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin A. Campbell | Attorney | Counsel for Mhm, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jack Ivan Jmaev | Attorney | Counsel for Mhm, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas S. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Mhm, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bishop Diehl and Lee, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Mhm, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Puritan Law | Law Firm | Representing Mhm, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation recites that ‘the Parties have reached an agreement to settle this action pursuant to their Settlement Agreement’ before invoking Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) for dismissal with prejudice. This language confirms a binding, executed settlement agreement existed at the time of filing. The with-prejudice designation means the district court retains no continuing jurisdiction over the underlying infringement claims, and Umbra is contractually and procedurally barred from re-litigating the same claims against Mhm absent a new cause of action.
USD0731799S — Ornamental Design for a Glass Floating Frame
USD0731799S (filed as US29/491581) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a Glass Floating Frame for Pressed Flowers. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of a product — in this case, the specific aesthetic configuration of a glass frame designed to display pressed botanical specimens. Protection extends to the design as shown in the patent drawings, making the scope visually defined rather than claim-language defined.
In the competitive consumer home décor market, design patents over display frames, botanical art accessories, and glass-based decorative products can provide meaningful barriers against look-alike products. Umbra — a well-known home accessories brand — asserting this patent against Mhm suggests the company treats its ornamental IP as a commercial asset worth enforcing. Any manufacturer, importer, or retailer selling a substantially similar glass floating frame product faces potential infringement exposure under the ordinary observer test applicable to U.S. design patents.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD0731799S?
If your company designs, imports, distributes, or retails glass floating frames, pressed flower display products, or aesthetically similar botanical display accessories, USD0731799S should be included in any freedom-to-operate review. The ordinary observer test — the governing standard for U.S. design patent infringement — does not require identical copying; a product that creates the same overall visual impression may infringe. This is particularly relevant for companies sourcing similar products from overseas manufacturers.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD0731799S against your product designs, surface related design patent families held by Umbra, and flag any pending continuation applications that may extend protection. An FTO report addressing this patent can materially reduce the risk of an enforcement action like the one brought against Mhm, Inc. in the Central District of California.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0731799S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Infringement Cases in Consumer Home Décor
Explore comparable design patent enforcement actions involving consumer home décor and display products litigated in the Central District of California and related U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the home décor design patent landscape
Settlement with prejudice in a design patent dispute over consumer décor reinforces the practical leverage these patents provide in product-adjacent disputes.
Design patents in consumer goods are credible litigation tools
Umbra’s ability to drive Mhm to a with-prejudice settlement — without reaching trial — demonstrates that ornamental design patents covering consumer home products can generate meaningful commercial leverage. Companies competing in the glass frame, display, or pressed-flower décor space should audit their product lines against active design registrations.
Settlement before claim construction limits public precedent
Because the case resolved before any reported Markman ruling, there is no public claim construction for USD0731799S. This means the scope of the protected ornamental design remains defined solely by the patent drawings. Competitors cannot rely on any narrowing interpretation from this litigation when assessing design-around strategies.
Umbra v Mhm — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on September 24, 2024, after the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement. The joint stipulation was filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). No merits ruling was issued by the court.
Umbra asserted U.S. design patent USD0731799S (application number US29/491581), which covers the ornamental design of a Glass Floating Frame for Pressed Flowers. Design patents protect the visual appearance of a product as depicted in the patent drawings.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Umbra from re-filing the same infringement claims against Mhm based on the same patent and accused product. It reflects a binding settlement between the parties and forecloses any future litigation on these specific claims.
The case lasted 382 days, from filing on September 8, 2023, to closure on September 24, 2024. It resolved before any publicly reported claim construction hearing or trial, which is consistent with settlement-driven timelines in design patent cases in the Central District of California.
Umbra was represented by Brown Rudnick LLP and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo PC, with attorneys including Andrew D. Skale and Michael R. Graif. Mhm, Inc. was represented by Bishop Diehl and Lee, Ltd. and Puritan Law, with attorneys including Benjamin A. Campbell and Jack Ivan Jmaev.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.