Yuhuanhongsheng v. dbest products: Three-Patent Cart Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
A Chinese trading company and US consumer products firm dbest products resolved a declaratory judgment dispute over three utility patents covering folding and rolling carts and storage boxes. The Southern District of New York dismissed all claims with prejudice after 246 days, following a joint stipulation — permanently closing the door on re-litigation of these specific claims.
Declaratory judgment over folding cart patents ends in permanent dismissal
Filed on 30 December 2024 in the Southern District of New York before Judge Cathy Seibel, this action was initiated by Yuhuanhongsheng Maoyi Co. — a Chinese trading entity — against dbest products, Inc., a US-based consumer products company. The case centred on three utility patents: US12275446B2, US12304546B1, and US12103576B2, all relating to folding and rolling carts and storage boxes — a competitive product category in the e-commerce and direct-to-consumer retail market.
The case was filed as a declaratory judgment action, suggesting the plaintiff sought a court ruling on non-infringement or invalidity before or in response to an enforcement threat from dbest products. After 246 days, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, and on 2 September 2025 Judge Seibel ordered all claims dismissed with prejudice and vacated the pending motion to dismiss. Dismissal with prejudice means neither party may re-assert these claims in future litigation.
The 246-day resolution timeline — well before trial and likely before substantive Markman proceedings — is consistent with a confidential settlement, licensing arrangement, or commercial agreement between the parties. The public record does not disclose any financial terms, licensing conditions, or admissions of infringement or validity. The fact that both parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice suggests a mutually agreed resolution rather than a unilateral concession by either side.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 246 days
246 days from filing to dismissal — consistent with pre-trial settlement or license resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal with prejudice entered by joint stipulation is a final, court-ordered termination of all claims. Unlike a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, this ruling permanently bars either party from re-litigating these specific claims in federal court. The court’s order also vacated the pending motion to dismiss, meaning no merits ruling was issued on the underlying declaratory judgment claims regarding the three patents.
Permanent bar on re-filingdbest products retains patent rights — no invalidity ruling issued
Because the dismissal was entered without any merits adjudication, the three patents — US12275446B2, US12304546B1, and US12103576B2 — remain in force and unchallenged by court ruling. dbest products, as the presumed patent rights holder targeted by this declaratory action, avoids a judicial invalidity or non-infringement finding. The patents retain their full presumption of validity and can continue to be enforced against other parties.
Patents survive — no invalidity rulingYuhuanhongsheng closes litigation risk — terms undisclosed
By jointly agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Yuhuanhongsheng exits litigation without a court finding of infringement against it. Whether this reflects a licensing agreement, design-around, or commercial settlement is not disclosed in the public record. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal means Yuhuanhongsheng also cannot revive the declaratory judgment action — suggesting the parties reached a durable resolution on the underlying commercial dispute.
No infringement finding — terms privateRolling cart patent landscape remains active enforcement terrain
Three patents covering folding and rolling cart and storage box designs surviving without invalidity challenge signals continued enforcement potential for dbest products in this category. Competitors and manufacturers operating in the folding cart and portable storage segment — particularly those selling through US e-commerce channels — should monitor these patent numbers. The absence of a merits ruling leaves claim scope unresolved, which may factor into future enforcement or licensing discussions with third parties.
Patent enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Yuhuanhongshengmaoyiyouxiangongsi | Individual | Chinese consumer goods trading company — holder of US12275446B2, US12304546B1, and US12103576B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | dbest products, Inc. | Company | dbest products, Inc. — US-based consumer products company specialising in rolling and folding storage solutionsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lance Liu | Attorney | Counsel for YuhuanhongshengmaoyiyouxiangongsiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lance Liu | Law Firm | Representing YuhuanhongshengmaoyiyouxiangongsiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jakob Benjamin Halpern | Attorney | Counsel for dbest products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Saiber LLC | Law Firm | Representing dbest products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Cathy Seibel | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a purely procedural resolution: no claim construction, infringement finding, or validity ruling was issued. The phrase ‘all claims asserted by the parties are hereby dismissed with prejudice’ confirms bilateral finality — neither party retains any live claim from this action. The simultaneous vacatur of the pending motion to dismiss indicates the parties reached their agreement before any merits adjudication, leaving the legal and technical scope of all three patents entirely unresolved by judicial authority.
US12275446B2, US12304546B1 & US12103576B2 — Folding and Rolling Cart Technology
The three asserted patents — US12275446B2, US12304546B1, and US12103576B2 — cover folding and rolling cart designs and storage box configurations in the consumer and light commercial product segment. Their relatively recent issue dates (reflected in high patent numbers) suggest these are newer filings protecting contemporary product designs. The application numbers indicate distinct filings rather than continuations of a single family, suggesting layered or complementary claim strategies across the portfolio.
For competitors in the portable storage and rolling cart category — particularly those manufacturing or distributing products through US e-commerce platforms — these patents represent meaningful enforcement risk. The fact that a declaratory judgment action was filed against them confirms the patent holder is actively asserting these rights. With no invalidity ruling on record, all three patents carry full presumption of validity, and their concurrent assertion in a single action suggests the holder views them as mutually reinforcing coverage over the product category.
Should you run an FTO against US12275446B2, US12304546B1, and US12103576B2?
Any manufacturer, importer, or online retailer selling folding carts, rolling storage units, or collapsible storage boxes in the US market should treat these three patents as active FTO concerns. The DJ filing pattern in this case confirms the patent holder is willing to assert these rights, and the with-prejudice dismissal means no prior court ruling limits the patents’ enforceability. Product teams developing or sourcing new storage and cart configurations should conduct claim-level analysis before US market entry or expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product features against the independent and dependent claims of all three patent families simultaneously, flagging overlapping claim elements and identifying design-around opportunities. Eureka’s citation analysis can also surface related prior art that may inform IPR or invalidity arguments if enforcement occurs. Start with a claim chart comparison across US12275446B2, US12304546B1, and US12103576B2 to understand where your product’s risk exposure is highest.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12275446B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar folding cart and storage product patent cases in US district courts
Explore comparable declaratory judgment and patent infringement cases involving folding cart and portable storage patents litigated in US district courts, including S.D.N.Y.
What this case signals for the portable storage and cart IP landscape
Three utility patents survive unchallenged. The resolution pattern suggests active enforcement posture in the folding cart and storage category.
Declaratory judgment filings signal live enforcement threats in this category
Yuhuanhongsheng’s decision to file a declaratory judgment action strongly suggests dbest products made an infringement assertion or demand — a common precursor to DJ filings. Companies selling rolling carts or folding storage boxes in the US market should assess their exposure to these three patent families before receiving a similar demand letter.
With-prejudice dismissal protects dbest’s patents from this challenger permanently
The joint stipulation with prejudice means Yuhuanhongsheng cannot re-challenge these patents through this litigation pathway again. For dbest products, this outcome strengthens its enforcement narrative — no court has found these patents invalid or not infringed. Competitors seeking to challenge the patents would need to pursue separate IPR or district court proceedings.
Yuhuanhongshengmaoyiyouxiangongsi v dbest — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 2 September 2025 pursuant to a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal. The Southern District of New York action, filed 30 December 2024, involved three utility patents covering folding and rolling carts and storage boxes. No merits ruling was issued; the pending motion to dismiss was also vacated.
Three US utility patents were at issue: US12275446B2, US12304546B1, and US12103576B2. All three relate to folding and rolling cart designs and storage box configurations. The case was filed as a declaratory judgment action, meaning the plaintiff sought a ruling on non-infringement or invalidity of these patents.
Dismissal with prejudice means the plaintiff Yuhuanhongsheng cannot re-file this specific action against dbest products. Critically, no court ruled on the validity or infringement scope of the three patents — they remain in force with full presumption of validity. The patent holder may continue to assert these patents against other parties.
A declaratory judgment action is typically filed when a party faces an actual or imminent threat of patent infringement claims. The filing by Yuhuanhongsheng strongly suggests dbest products had made an infringement allegation or demand prior to the lawsuit, prompting the plaintiff to seek a pre-emptive judicial ruling. The public record does not disclose the specific triggering communication.
Yes. Because the case was dismissed before any merits adjudication, no court has ruled these patents invalid or not infringed. All three patents retain their presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. Companies selling competing folding cart or storage box products in the US market should conduct FTO analysis against these patent families.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.