Wuhan Zhidan v. dbest products: Storage Bin Patent Settled With Prejudice
Wuhan Zhidan Network Technology Co. Ltd. — trading as Wise Oannes and MapleGrace — filed suit against dbest products, Inc. in the Central District of California asserting US12103576B2 over four-tier stackable plastic storage bins sold on Amazon. The parties reached a confidential settlement after 173 days, with the case dismissed with prejudice and each side bearing its own legal fees.
Amazon storefront dispute over stackable storage bins reaches early settlement
On March 14, 2025, Wuhan Zhidan Network Technology Co. Ltd. — operating Amazon storefronts under the brand names Wise Oannes and MapleGrace — filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against dbest products, Inc. The complaint asserted patent US12103576B2 in connection with four-tier stackable plastic storage bins sold under ASINs B0CGZ9ZK4Z, B0CZ12CYJB, B0CZ11331V, and B0DCGGNRSQ. The case also referenced Amazon’s Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) mechanism as part of the enforcement context.
The action concluded on September 3, 2025 — just 173 days after filing — via a voluntary dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Critically, the dismissal was WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement, meaning plaintiffs are permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against dbest products on the same patent. Each party agreed to bear its own fees and costs, suggesting no monetary exchange was acknowledged in the public record beyond the settlement itself.
The case resolved before defendant dbest products filed any answer, which is notable: a pre-answer dismissal with prejudice typically signals that the settlement was commercially meaningful enough for the plaintiff to permanently close the door on further litigation. The involvement of Amazon’s APEX procedure — a binding pseudo-arbitration mechanism for marketplace patent disputes — adds a layer of e-commerce platform enforcement strategy that is increasingly common in consumer product patent disputes. The specific financial terms and any licensing arrangement remain confidential.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 173 days
173 days — resolved before defendant filed any answer, suggesting early settlement pressure
Dismissed with prejudice: what the settlement resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): voluntary dismissal before answer filed
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, the parties agreed to make that dismissal WITH PREJUDICE — a contractual elevation of the default without-prejudice standard — meaning the dismissal carries the force of a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWith prejudice confirmed: plaintiff permanently barred from refiling
A dismissal with prejudice is legally distinct from one without prejudice. Without prejudice, a plaintiff retains the right to refile the same claims; with prejudice, those claims are extinguished permanently. The verdict text expressly states ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ leaving no ambiguity. Wuhan Zhidan and its affiliated entities (Wise Oannes and MapleGrace) cannot reassert these specific infringement claims against dbest products under US12103576B2.
Claims permanently extinguisheddbest products exits litigation without admitting liability
dbest products secured a full end to this litigation without ever filing an answer, and without any public admission of infringement or liability. The with-prejudice dismissal provides dbest products with strong preclusion protection against re-litigation of the same claims. The equal cost-bearing arrangement suggests neither party extracted a dominant concession on fees, consistent with a negotiated compromise rather than a capitulation.
No liability admission; preclusion securedAPEX enforcement and Amazon marketplace patent strategy
The complaint’s reference to Amazon’s Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) mechanism highlights an emerging enforcement dynamic: patent holders on Amazon can initiate APEX proceedings to delist competitor ASINs before or alongside federal litigation. Pre-answer settlements in this context often reflect a combination of APEX leverage and litigation cost calculus. Sellers operating in the consumer storage and organization category on Amazon should monitor both APEX filings and district court actions as coordinated enforcement tools.
APEX + federal court dual-track riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | WUHAN ZHIDAN NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. | Company | Amazon marketplace seller in consumer storage products — holder of US12103576B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | dbest products, Inc. | Company | dbest products, Inc. — consumer storage and organization products manufacturer and Amazon sellerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Man Li | Attorney | Counsel for WUHAN ZHIDAN NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy T. Wang | Attorney | Counsel for WUHAN ZHIDAN NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Manni Li | Law Firm | Representing WUHAN ZHIDAN NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni, Wang & Massand PLLC | Law Firm | Representing WUHAN ZHIDAN NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly ties the with-prejudice designation to a confidential settlement agreement — an important distinction from a unilateral dismissal. The phrase ‘each party shall bear its own fees and costs’ is a standard mutual release of fee claims, indicating no party sought or obtained an ‘exceptional case’ finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The pre-answer timing means no claim construction, invalidity, or non-infringement positions were ever adjudicated on the merits, leaving the patent’s scope and validity legally untested in this proceeding.
US12103576B2 — Stackable Plastic Storage Bin Structure and Design
US12103576B2 (application number US18/542495) covers stackable plastic storage bin technology — specifically the structural and design elements enabling multi-tier vertical stacking configurations. The patent is asserted in the context of four-tier storage bin products sold on Amazon by the plaintiff entities under the Wise Oannes and MapleGrace brands. Consumer storage and organization patents of this type typically cover interlocking geometries, load-bearing interfaces, or specific bin proportions that enable stable stacking without additional hardware.
In the competitive Amazon marketplace for consumer storage products, design and utility patents on bin geometry can function as effective enforcement tools even where underlying claims are narrow — because the cost of APEX delisting and federal litigation defense frequently exceeds the commercial value of a single product ASIN. US12103576B2 remains active and unadjudicated on the merits following this settlement, meaning it retains full enforcement potential against other sellers in the stackable storage bin category. Competitors offering functionally similar four-tier stackable bin configurations should treat this patent as an active commercial risk.
Should you run an FTO against US12103576B2?
Any brand, private label seller, or manufacturer offering stackable plastic storage bins — particularly four-tier configurations — on Amazon or other e-commerce platforms should evaluate their freedom-to-operate against US12103576B2. The patent survived this litigation cycle without any invalidity or non-infringement adjudication, meaning it enters the market with full presumption of validity intact. Given the plaintiff’s demonstrated willingness to use APEX proceedings alongside federal litigation, exposure is not limited to court costs — ASIN delisting can occur on a compressed timeline.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s structural features against the claim language of US12103576B2, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and flag related prosecution history that could inform claim scope interpretation. For Amazon marketplace sellers, Eureka can also surface co-pending applications in the same patent family — critical intelligence if the plaintiff is building a continuation strategy around stackable storage bin technology.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12103576B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Amazon marketplace storage product patent cases in the Central District
Cases involving stackable or modular storage product patents litigated in the Central District of California, particularly those involving Amazon seller enforcement and APEX proceedings.
What this case signals for the Amazon marketplace patent IP landscape
This case illustrates how Amazon storefront patent disputes are being resolved through a combination of federal litigation and platform-level enforcement mechanisms like APEX.
Pre-answer settlements signal APEX leverage, not just litigation weakness
When a defendant settles before filing an answer, it does not necessarily mean the patent claim was strong. In the Amazon context, APEX proceedings can delist a competitor’s ASINs within weeks — creating commercial pressure that accelerates settlement regardless of the underlying patent merit. Legal teams advising Amazon sellers should evaluate APEX risk independently of district court strategy.
With-prejudice dismissals provide durable protection — but only for the named defendant
dbest products is now protected by res judicata on these specific claims under US12103576B2. However, the patent remains active and enforceable against other market participants. Competing Amazon sellers in the stackable storage bin category should not assume this settlement extends any protection to their own product listings.
WUHAN v dbest — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on September 3, 2025, pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Each party agreed to bear its own fees and costs. The dismissal is final and permanent — Wuhan Zhidan cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against dbest products under US12103576B2.
The asserted patent is US12103576B2 (application no. US18/542495), covering stackable plastic storage bin technology. The plaintiff alleged infringement through four-tier stackable plastic storage bins sold on Amazon under ASINs B0CGZ9ZK4Z, B0CZ12CYJB, B0CZ11331V, and B0DCGGNRSQ by the Wise Oannes and MapleGrace storefronts.
Amazon’s Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) is a binding pseudo-arbitration mechanism that allows patent holders to seek ASIN delisting for allegedly infringing products sold on Amazon. The complaint in this case referenced APEX as part of the enforcement context, consistent with a dual-track strategy of platform-level delisting and federal court litigation that is increasingly common in Amazon marketplace patent disputes.
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant has filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The parties agreed to elevate this to a with-prejudice dismissal through their confidential settlement, permanently resolving the dispute. Pre-answer resolution typically suggests early commercial settlement pressure, potentially amplified by APEX delisting risk.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal only protects dbest products from re-litigation of these specific claims. US12103576B2 remains an active, enforceable patent and was never adjudicated on validity or infringement merits. Other Amazon sellers offering four-tier stackable plastic storage bins remain exposed to potential enforcement actions by the patent holder.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.