Zito LLC v. Stauffer Manufacturing: PPE Vending Machine Patent Dispute Dismissed
Zito LLC filed suit against Stauffer Manufacturing Company in the Arkansas Western District Court asserting three patents covering PPE vending machine technology. After 248 days, the parties agreed to a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41, leaving the door open for refiling.
Three-Patent PPE Vending Machine Dispute Ends Without Merits Ruling
Zito LLC filed this patent infringement action on February 21, 2025, in the Arkansas Western District Court before Judge Timothy L. Brooks. The complaint asserted three patents — US10867461B2, US11127239B2, and US11710364B2 — all directed at PPE vending machine technology, against Stauffer Manufacturing Company. Zito LLC was represented by attorney Joseph J. Zito of DNL Zito, while Stauffer retained Mark M. Henry and Otto Matthew Bartsch of Henry Law Firm.
The case closed on October 27, 2025, via voluntary dismissal without prejudice, agreed by both parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Crucially, a dismissal without prejudice does not constitute a ruling on the merits: Zito LLC retains the right to reassert these patents against Stauffer Manufacturing or other parties in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any tolling considerations.
A resolution after 248 days — before any reported claim construction or summary judgment ruling — suggests the parties may have reached a commercial understanding, or that Zito LLC elected to withdraw strategically, possibly to refile in a different venue or after further claim analysis. The public record is silent on any settlement terms, licensing arrangement, or the specific trigger for dismissal, leaving the underlying IP dispute formally unresolved.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 248 days
248 days — roughly 8 months from filing to closure in federal district court
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — dismissal by stipulation, not on the merits
Under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order when all parties who have appeared sign a stipulation. This mechanism closes the case procedurally but issues no judgment on validity, infringement, or damages. The court made no ruling on the merits of Zito’s three PPE vending machine patents.
No merits adjudicationThe ‘without prejudice’ distinction matters significantly here
A dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims. A dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar Zito LLC from reasserting these patents against Stauffer on the same grounds. The public record confirms this is without prejudice, meaning the dispute is paused — not resolved. Future litigation risk from these three patents remains live.
Refiling remains possibleZito LLC exits with options preserved and no adverse judgment
Zito LLC avoids any finding of non-infringement, invalidity, or unenforceability. The patents US10867461B2, US11127239B2, and US11710364B2 retain their presumption of validity. Zito may reassert them in a new action, negotiate a licensing deal, or target different defendants in the PPE vending machine space without the constraint of an adverse ruling.
Patents remain enforceableStauffer wins dismissal — but no invalidity finding shields it long-term
Stauffer Manufacturing secured the dismissal without any award of attorneys’ fees or a ruling that it does not infringe. Absent a declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity, Stauffer remains potentially exposed to re-assertion of all three Zito patents. Companies in the PPE vending machine market relying on Stauffer’s technology should monitor this IP portfolio closely.
No long-term safe harbourFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Zito, LLC | Company | PPE vending machine IP holder — asserting US10867461B2, US11127239B2, and US11710364B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Stauffer Manufacturing Company | Company | Stauffer Manufacturing Company — accused PPE vending machine manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph J. Zito | Attorney | Counsel for Zito, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dnl Zito | Law Firm | Representing Zito, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark M. Henry | Attorney | Counsel for Stauffer Manufacturing CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Otto Matthew Bartsch | Attorney | Counsel for Stauffer Manufacturing CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Henry Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Stauffer Manufacturing CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Timothy L Brooks | Judge | Arkansas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal language confirms mutual agreement between the parties, which distinguishes this exit from a unilateral plaintiff withdrawal. The explicit invocation of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — requiring both parties’ consent — suggests Stauffer acquiesced, possibly in exchange for undisclosed commercial terms. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, neither patent validity nor infringement was determined, leaving the legal status of all three PPE vending machine patents unchanged.
US10867461B2, US11127239B2 & US11710364B2 — PPE Vending Machine Technology
The three patents-in-suit — US10867461B2 (App. No. 15/200,048), US11127239B2 (App. No. 15/212,644), and US11710364B2 (App. No. 17/389,896) — collectively cover automated vending machine systems designed specifically for personal protective equipment. The application numbers suggest a family spanning two filing generations, with the most recent application (17/389,896) indicating a continuation or related filing, likely broadening or refining claims from the earlier family members.
PPE vending machines have become significant infrastructure in industrial, manufacturing, and healthcare environments, particularly following heightened workplace safety enforcement. A patent portfolio covering dispensing mechanisms, inventory tracking, and access control in this category could affect a wide range of manufacturers and distributors. Competitors in automated safety equipment dispensing should assess whether their product architectures intersect with any claims in this three-patent family before commercial deployment.
Should you run an FTO against US10867461B2, US11127239B2 & US11710364B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing PPE vending machines or automated safety equipment dispensing systems should treat this patent family as an active risk. The dismissal without prejudice means Zito LLC retains full enforcement rights. R&D teams developing dispensing hardware, software interfaces, or inventory management features for PPE applications should assess freedom to operate before product launch or scaling.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of all three Zito patents against your product specification, identify relevant prior art that may support design-arounds, and flag continuation applications that could expand claim scope. Given the multi-patent family structure, a claim-by-claim analysis across all three patents is recommended to identify the narrowest path to clearance.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10867461B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar PPE Vending Machine Patent Infringement Cases
Explore related patent infringement disputes involving automated vending and dispensing technology litigated in U.S. federal district courts, including the Arkansas Western District.
What this case signals for the PPE vending machine IP landscape
Three live vending machine patents, no merits ruling, and a strategic exit — this dispute has unfinished implications for the sector.
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice signals ongoing negotiation risk
When plaintiffs exit via Rule 41 without prejudice, it typically signals unresolved commercial leverage rather than abandonment. Zito LLC’s three PPE vending machine patents remain valid and enforceable. Competitors and customers of Stauffer Manufacturing should treat this as a pause, not a resolution.
Three-patent portfolio signals a deliberate enforcement strategy
Asserting three related patents — US10867461B2, US11127239B2, and US11710364B2 — in a single action is consistent with a layered claim strategy designed to increase settlement pressure. Even if one patent faces validity challenges, the others may sustain an infringement case. Companies developing PPE dispensing or automated safety equipment should conduct FTO analysis across all three.
Zito v Stauffer — key questions answered
Zito LLC filed a patent infringement action against Stauffer Manufacturing in the Arkansas Western District Court on February 21, 2025, asserting three PPE vending machine patents. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by agreement of both parties on October 27, 2025, after 248 days, with no ruling on the merits.
Zito LLC asserted US10867461B2 (App. No. 15/200,048), US11127239B2 (App. No. 15/212,644), and US11710364B2 (App. No. 17/389,896). All three patents relate to PPE vending machine technology. The patents remain valid and enforceable following the without-prejudice dismissal.
A dismissal without prejudice means no court ruling was made on patent validity, infringement, or damages. Zito LLC retains the right to refile the same claims against Stauffer Manufacturing or other defendants. The three PPE vending machine patents continue to carry their presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Zito LLC is not barred from reasserting US10867461B2, US11127239B2, and US11710364B2 against Stauffer in a future action. Stauffer obtained no declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity. Pursuing an IPR petition at the PTAB may be its most durable path to long-term clearance.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas and was assigned to Judge Timothy L. Brooks. It was a first-instance district court matter with case number 5:25-cv-05036. The case closed after 248 days via stipulated voluntary dismissal without a trial or dispositive ruling.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.