Electrasense Technologies v. Schedule A Defendants: Wall Socket Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Electrasense Technologies (XYZ LLC) asserted US9812876B2 — a wall socket technology patent — against a cohort of e-commerce defendants in the Northern District of Illinois. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal with prejudice after 182 days, with each side bearing its own fees and costs.
Schedule A wall socket patent suit ends in with-prejudice stipulation
On April 25, 2025, XYZ LLC — identified in the verdict as Electrasense Technologies LLC — filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:25-cv-04500) before Judge Thomas M. Durkin. The suit targeted a group of defendants identified as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,’ a common enforcement structure used against online marketplace sellers. The single patent asserted, US9812876B2, covers wall socket technology.
The case closed on October 24, 2025, via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, jointly filed by Electrasense Technologies and the named defendants Abbotech, AMERISENSEUS, and TOPELER. Dismissal with prejudice is a final, court-binding termination — Electrasense cannot re-file the same claims against these defendants. Crucially, each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, meaning no damages, royalties, or cost awards appear in the public record.
A resolution in 182 days is relatively swift for patent litigation, suggesting the parties likely negotiated a private settlement or license outside the court record before filing the stipulation — though the public docket does not confirm this. The with-prejudice dismissal is notable: it protects defendants from future suit on the same claims, but may also reflect a negotiated consideration not publicly disclosed. The involvement of a ‘Schedule A’ defendant structure is consistent with IP enforcement campaigns targeting parallel e-commerce sellers.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 182 days
182 days — faster than the N.D. Illinois median for patent cases, suggesting early resolution
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: what the outcome means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice forecloses all future claims on these facts
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a final, agreed termination of all asserted claims. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, the plaintiff cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against these specific defendants. The court retains no continuing jurisdiction over the merits. This finality is significant and typically suggests the parties resolved their dispute on agreed terms before entering the stipulation.
Rule 41 — permanent bar to refilingElectrasense exits with prejudice — future enforcement against these defendants blocked
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Electrasense Technologies forfeits the right to re-assert US9812876B2 against Abbotech, AMERISENSEUS, and TOPELER in future proceedings. This is consistent with having secured a private settlement, license, or other commercial resolution. However, the patent itself remains in force, and Electrasense retains the right to enforce it against other parties not covered by this stipulation.
Patent survives — new defendants remain at riskNamed defendants gain permanent protection from these specific claims
Abbotech, AMERISENSEUS, and TOPELER benefit from the with-prejudice dismissal: Electrasense cannot re-assert the same infringement claims under US9812876B2 against them in a future action. Each party bearing its own costs removes any financial penalty from the public record. Whether the defendants agreed to modify their products, pay a license fee, or simply litigated to a standstill remains undisclosed.
Defendants shielded from re-suit on same claimsUS9812876B2 remains active — other wall socket sellers face continued exposure
The resolution of this specific action does not diminish the enforceability of US9812876B2. Other e-commerce sellers and manufacturers of competing wall socket products who were not named in Schedule A remain potentially exposed to enforcement. The swift 182-day resolution and the ‘Schedule A’ enforcement model suggest Electrasense may operate a broader licensing or enforcement programme across multiple defendants simultaneously.
Active patent — ongoing sector riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | XYZ LLC | Company | IP enforcement entity — holder of US9812876B2 (wall socket technology)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Schedule A e-commerce sellers including Abbotech, AMERISENSEUS, and TOPELERSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hao Ni | Attorney | Counsel for XYZ LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stevenson Moore | Attorney | Counsel for XYZ LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni Law Firm PLLC | Law Firm | Representing XYZ LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing XYZ LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason Liang Xu | Attorney | Counsel for The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Edward Handy | Attorney | Counsel for The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Rimon PC | Law Firm | Representing The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Thomas M. Durkin | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation confirms dismissal with prejudice of all claims, with each party bearing its own fees and costs. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal term: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, meaning Electrasense is permanently barred from re-asserting these specific infringement claims against the named defendants. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement suggests neither party achieved a court-ordered victory, consistent with a privately negotiated resolution whose commercial terms remain confidential.
US9812876B2 — Wall Socket Electrical Outlet Technology
US9812876B2, filed under application number US15/000049, is a granted U.S. utility patent covering wall socket technology. The patent issued to Electrasense Technologies LLC and forms the sole basis of this infringement action. Wall socket patents in this space typically protect novel structural configurations, safety features, integrated charging capabilities (e.g. USB ports), or smart/connected outlet functionality — though the precise claim scope of this patent should be independently verified against the issued claims.
For the smart home and electrical components sector, granted patents on wall socket technology carry meaningful commercial risk. The product category is high-volume and served by numerous manufacturers and online resellers, making it a frequent target for Schedule A enforcement campaigns. US9812876B2 remaining in force after this dismissal means any competitor or distributor offering wall sockets or smart outlets with overlapping technical features should assess claim exposure — particularly those selling through Amazon, eBay, or Alibaba storefronts where Schedule A actions are most commonly directed.
Should you run an FTO against US9812876B2?
Any manufacturer, importer, or online retailer of wall sockets, smart outlets, USB receptacles, or integrated electrical outlet products should treat US9812876B2 as an active enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that Electrasense Technologies is prepared to litigate in N.D. Illinois — one of the most plaintiff-friendly venues for Schedule A actions. If your product falls within the broad category of ‘wall socket’ devices, an FTO analysis against this patent is warranted before scaling distribution through major e-commerce platforms.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP and R&D teams to rapidly map claim coverage, identify prior art, and surface design-around pathways for US9812876B2. Eureka’s AI-powered analysis cross-references the issued claims against your product specifications, flags overlap risk, and benchmarks against the full prosecution history — giving your legal team the evidence base needed to make confident clearance decisions without exhaustive manual review.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9812876B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wall socket patent cases in N.D. Illinois Schedule A litigation
Explore comparable Schedule A patent enforcement actions in the N.D. Illinois targeting electrical outlet and smart wall socket technology sellers.
What this case signals for the smart wall socket IP landscape
A swift Schedule A dismissal with prejudice is rarely the end of the story — the underlying patent remains live and the enforcement model suggests repeat campaigns.
Schedule A campaigns target online sellers at scale — monitor your supply chain
The ‘Schedule A’ defendant structure is a well-established mechanism in N.D. Illinois for pursuing multiple e-commerce sellers simultaneously. Distributors and marketplace vendors of wall socket or smart outlet products should assess their exposure to US9812876B2 regardless of this dismissal, as non-named sellers remain fully at risk of subsequent actions.
With-prejudice dismissal with own-costs typically signals private resolution
When parties stipulate to dismissal with prejudice and waive fee-shifting, it strongly suggests a confidential settlement or license was reached. Legal teams monitoring this space should treat US9812876B2 as an actively enforced patent — the absence of a public damages figure does not mean the enforcement campaign has concluded.
XYZ v Partnerships — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of all parties on October 24, 2025. Electrasense Technologies, Abbotech, AMERISENSEUS, and TOPELER agreed to terminate all claims with each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The with-prejudice designation means Electrasense cannot re-file the same claims against these defendants.
Electrasense Technologies asserted a single patent: US9812876B2, filed under application number US15/000049. The patent covers wall socket technology and was the sole basis for the infringement claims brought in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Thomas M. Durkin.
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice is a jointly agreed, permanent termination of all asserted claims. For the defendants — Abbotech, AMERISENSEUS, and TOPELER — it means Electrasense is permanently barred from re-asserting the same US9812876B2 infringement claims against them. The dismissal operates as a final adjudication for res judicata purposes, providing strong procedural protection against a refiling on identical facts.
No. A stipulated dismissal with prejudice resolves the dispute between the specific parties but does not affect the validity or enforceability of US9812876B2 against third parties. The patent remains granted and in force. Other manufacturers, importers, or online sellers of wall socket products who were not named in this Schedule A action remain potentially subject to future enforcement by Electrasense Technologies.
The N.D. Illinois is a favoured venue for Schedule A IP enforcement because its local rules and procedural precedent facilitate ex parte temporary restraining orders and asset freezes against anonymous online defendants — particularly useful against e-commerce sellers on platforms such as Amazon and eBay. This enforcement model allows patent holders to name multiple defendants in a single filing and efficiently pursue sellers of allegedly infringing products at scale.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.