Zhejiang Zhengte v. Sojag Inc.: Louvered Pergola Patent Settled in 349 Days
Chinese outdoor structures manufacturer Zhejiang Zhengte brought a patent infringement action against Sojag Inc. in the Central District of California over the ‘Hana’ louvered pergola covered by US11624187B2. The case resolved via settlement and was dismissed with prejudice after 349 days, with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
Louvered pergola patent claim ends in confidential settlement
Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd., a Chinese outdoor structures manufacturer and holder of US11624187B2, filed suit against Sojag Inc. on July 17, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cv-06020). The complaint alleged infringement of patent US11624187B2 in connection with Sojag’s ‘Hana’ louvered pergola product, placing the case squarely within the increasingly contested outdoor living structures patent space.
The case closed on July 1, 2025 — 349 days after filing — through a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), reflecting a private settlement agreement between Zhejiang Zhengte and Shelterlogic Operations Canada, Ltd., identified as the successor in interest to Sojag Operations, Inc. (formerly Sojag, Inc.). A dismissal with prejudice means all claims are permanently extinguished and cannot be refiled, signalling that the parties reached a substantive resolution rather than simply walking away.
The 349-day resolution timeline suggests the parties engaged in early settlement negotiations, likely before extensive claim construction proceedings. The successor-in-interest structure — Shelterlogic stepping in for Sojag — may have accelerated resolution by introducing a new commercial counterparty motivated to clear IP encumbrances. The specific financial or licensing terms of the settlement remain confidential, as is typical for Rule 41 stipulated dismissals, leaving the exact commercial outcome unknown from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 349 days
349 days — faster than the median C.D. Cal. patent case, consistent with early settlement pressure
Settled and dismissed with prejudice: what the outcome means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice — claims permanently closed
The stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires both parties’ consent and, because it is ‘with prejudice’, permanently bars Zhejiang Zhengte from refiling the same infringement claims against Sojag or its successor Shelterlogic. This is the standard mechanism used to implement a patent settlement, indicating the dispute has been fully resolved rather than merely paused.
Permanent bar on refilingZhengte’s patent survives — enforceability unaffected
A settlement dismissal does not invalidate or limit US11624187B2. The patent remains in force and fully enforceable against third parties. Zhejiang Zhengte retains all rights to assert the patent in future actions against other alleged infringers in the louvered pergola space. The confidential settlement may also include a licensing arrangement or design-around commitment from Shelterlogic, though this is not disclosed in the public record.
Patent remains enforceableShelterlogic obtains certainty — at undisclosed commercial cost
For Shelterlogic (successor to Sojag), the dismissal with prejudice provides commercial certainty: the ‘Hana’ pergola infringement claims are permanently resolved. The transition of the defendant party to Shelterlogic Operations Canada suggests a corporate restructuring during the litigation, and settling early likely avoided costly claim construction and discovery. The terms — financial, licensing, or product modification — remain private.
Infringement claims extinguishedOutdoor structures IP remains an active enforcement front
This case is consistent with a broader trend of Chinese outdoor structures manufacturers actively enforcing U.S. patents against North American competitors and distributors. Companies selling louvered pergolas, shade structures, or modular outdoor shelters in the U.S. should treat US11624187B2 as a live enforcement risk — Zhejiang Zhengte has demonstrated willingness to litigate and the patent’s validity was never challenged to a final determination here.
Active enforcement risk for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd. | Company | Outdoor structures manufacturer — holder of US11624187B2 covering the louvered pergolaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Sojag Inc. | Company | Sojag Inc. / Shelterlogic Operations Canada, Ltd. — outdoor shelter and pergola products companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph K. Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathaniel L. Dilger | Attorney | Counsel for Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter R. Afrasiabi | Attorney | Counsel for Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Taylor C. Foss | Attorney | Counsel for Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | One LLP | Law Firm | Representing Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Derrick F. Coleman | Attorney | Counsel for Sojag Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Fatima Lahnin | Attorney | Counsel for Sojag Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John R. Horvack , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Sojag Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Carmody Torrance Sandak And Hennessey, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Sojag Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Coleman Frost, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Sojag Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text reveals a settlement executed between Zhejiang Zhengte and Shelterlogic Operations Canada as successor to Sojag, stipulating dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The ‘with prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it permanently extinguishes the asserted infringement claims and any counterclaims, foreclosing any future re-litigation of these specific disputes between these parties. The mutual cost-bearing provision — each party paying its own fees — is typical of negotiated settlements and does not indicate either party prevailed on the merits.
US11624187B2 — louvered pergola structural design patent
US11624187B2 (application number US17/848318) covers structural design elements of a louvered pergola — an outdoor shade structure featuring adjustable or fixed angled slats (louvers) supported by a frame system. The patent was asserted in connection with the ‘Hana’ branded louvered pergola product sold by Sojag. Louvered pergola patents typically protect specific frame configurations, louver attachment mechanisms, and assembly innovations that differentiate premium outdoor living products from commodity alternatives.
For the outdoor structures and garden furniture sector, design and utility patents covering pergola construction details have become a significant enforcement tool, particularly as Chinese manufacturers have invested in U.S. patent portfolios to protect market positions established through direct-to-consumer and big-box retail channels. US11624187B2’s survival through this litigation — without any invalidity ruling — means it represents a meaningful freedom-to-operate consideration for any North American brand developing or sourcing louvered pergola products. Competitors should assess whether their structural approaches fall within the patent’s claim scope.
Should your product team run an FTO against US11624187B2?
If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or distributes louvered pergolas or structurally similar outdoor shade structures in the U.S. market, US11624187B2 warrants immediate FTO attention. The patent survived litigation without any validity challenge reaching a final determination, and Zhejiang Zhengte has demonstrated active enforcement intent. Retailers sourcing private-label pergola products from third-party manufacturers are also exposed, as downstream sellers can face infringement liability.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map your product’s structural features against the claim language of US11624187B2, surface relevant prior art that may support a validity challenge, and identify related continuation or family applications that could extend coverage. Use Eureka to benchmark your design against the asserted claims and generate a defensible FTO position before your next product launch or sourcing decision.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11624187B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar louvered pergola and outdoor structures patent cases
Patent infringement disputes over outdoor pergola and shade structure designs in U.S. district courts — cases with comparable claim profiles to US11624187B2.
What this case signals for the outdoor structures IP landscape
Zhejiang Zhengte’s willingness to litigate in C.D. Cal. signals an assertive IP posture. Competitors in the louvered pergola market should act now.
US11624187B2 was never invalidated — treat it as a live threat
The case settled before any claim construction order or validity ruling. US11624187B2 emerges from this litigation with its claims fully intact. Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing louvered pergolas in the U.S. market should conduct a formal FTO analysis against this patent before launching or continuing sales.
Successor liability risk: corporate restructuring does not erase IP disputes
Shelterlogic’s substitution as successor to Sojag mid-litigation illustrates that patent infringement claims follow the product line, not just the named entity. Acquirers and distributors in the outdoor structures space should conduct IP due diligence that includes pending and recently settled litigation, not just registered IP portfolios.
Zhejiang v Sojag — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on July 1, 2025, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Zhejiang Zhengte and Shelterlogic Operations Canada (successor to Sojag). All claims and counterclaims were extinguished, with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No merits ruling was issued.
Zhejiang Zhengte asserted US11624187B2 (application no. US17/848318), a patent covering structural elements of a louvered pergola design. The patent was asserted in connection with Sojag’s ‘Hana’ branded louvered pergola product. The patent remains in force and was not invalidated by the litigation.
Dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars the plaintiff from refiling the same claims against the same parties. In a settlement context, it signals a substantive resolution — typically involving payment, licensing, or a design-around commitment — rather than a simple walkaway. The asserted patent itself is unaffected and remains enforceable against third parties.
The verdict text identifies Shelterlogic Operations Canada, Ltd. as the successor in interest to Sojag Operations, Inc. (formerly Sojag, Inc.), suggesting a corporate acquisition or restructuring occurred during the litigation. Under U.S. patent law, successors in interest to an infringing business can assume the defendant’s legal obligations, and the settlement was executed in Shelterlogic’s name to ensure finality.
Yes. US11624187B2 emerged from this litigation without any invalidity determination, and Zhejiang Zhengte demonstrated enforcement willingness by filing in the Central District of California. Companies designing, importing, or distributing louvered pergolas in the U.S. should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent’s claim scope before continuing or launching sales to assess infringement risk.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.