Tang Zhaoshi v. Schedule A Defendants: Iron Frame Design Patent Dispute Settled
Was möchten Sie als Nächstes tun?
Wählen Sie Ihren Weg entsprechend Ihren aktuellen Bedürfnissen:
Lernen Sie aus diesem Fall
Verstehen Sie die rechtliche Analyse, den Zeitplan und die wichtigsten Erkenntnisse.
EmpfohlenÜberprüfen Sie das Risiko meines Produkts
Führen Sie eine FTO-Analyse für Ihre eigene Technologie oder Ihr eigenes Produkt durch.
Patentlandschaft erkunden
Ähnliche Patente und Wettbewerbsinformationen anzeigen
📋 Fallzusammenfassung
| Fallbezeichnung | Tang Zhaoshi v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| Fallnummer | 1:23-cv-04587 (N.D. Ill.) |
| Gericht | Nördlicher Bezirk von Illinois |
| Dauer | July 2023 – August 2024 ~13 months |
| Ergebnis | Defendant Dismissed (Settled) |
| Streitige Patente | |
| Beschuldigte Produkte | Iron frame products sold via online marketplaces |
Fallübersicht
A design patent infringement action filed in the Illinois Northern District Court concluded with a negotiated dismissal with prejudice, offering a textbook illustration of how Schedule A e-commerce enforcement campaigns frequently resolve outside formal adjudication. In Tang Zhaoshi v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Case No. 1:23-cv-04587), plaintiff Tang Zhaoshi pursued multiple online marketplace sellers — including defendants operating under names such as Cocoo, Docoo, Lzhevsk, Wings of Esa, Yummy Makeup, and Lvhevsk — for alleged infringement of design patent USD927221S, covering an iron frame product design.
The case closed on August 13, 2024, approximately 396 days after filing, with the matter between Tang Zhaoshi and defendant Lzhevsk dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with no award of attorney’s fees or costs to either side. For IP professionals, in-house counsel, and R&D teams operating in the consumer products and e-commerce space, this case reflects persistent strategic trends in design patent assertion against cross-border marketplace sellers.
Die Parteien
⚖️ Kläger
Individual patent holder asserting rights over a proprietary iron frame design, a commercially manufactured product commonly sold through e-commerce platforms.
🛡️ Beklagter
One of multiple online marketplace sellers (including Cocoo, Docoo, Wings of Esa, Yummy Makeup, and Lvhevsk) identified via the Schedule A mechanism for alleged infringement of the iron frame design patent.
Das streitige Patent
This case involved design patent USD927221S (Application No. US29/775514), protecting the ornamental appearance of an iron frame product rather than its functional attributes. Design patents, governed under 35 U.S.C. § 171, protect the unique visual characteristics of a manufactured article. Unlike utility patents, design patent infringement is evaluated under the ordinary observer test established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008), asking whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design.
- • US D927221S — Ornamental design for an iron frame
Designing a similar iron frame product?
Check if your product design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
Das Urteil und die rechtliche Analyse
Ergebnis
The case concluded via stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), specifically between plaintiff Tang Zhaoshi and defendant Lzhevsk. Key terms of the dismissal include:
- • Dismissed with prejudice (barring re-litigation of the same claims)
- • No attorney’s fees or costs awarded to either party
- • All costs described as having been paid prior to dismissal
The specific financial terms of any underlying settlement agreement were not publicly disclosed, which is standard practice in IP settlement resolutions.
Rechtliche Bedeutung
Es ergeben sich mehrere rechtlich relevante Feststellungen:
- • Design Patent Scope in E-Commerce: This case reinforces the viability of design patents as enforcement tools against marketplace sellers, even in cases involving relatively straightforward consumer products like iron frames.
- • Schedule A Strategy Effectiveness: The consolidation of multiple defendants under the Schedule A framework enabled the plaintiff to pursue enforcement efficiently, with at least one defendant (Lzhevsk) settling rather than contesting the merits.
- • No Validity Challenge on Record: The public record does not reflect any inter partes review (IPR) petition or formal invalidity challenge filed against USD927221S, suggesting defendants opted for commercial resolution over patent challenge strategies.
Strategische Erkenntnisse
Für Patentinhaber:
- • Design patents on consumer products, even common items, can support viable Schedule A enforcement campaigns in the Northern District of Illinois.
- • Filing applications under the USPTO design patent track provides relatively fast prosecution timelines and broad ornamental protection.
Für mutmaßliche Rechtsverletzer:
- • Early engagement with experienced cross-border IP counsel is critical. The speed of TRO proceedings in Schedule A cases can result in rapid asset freezes before defendants can mount a substantive defense.
- • Challenging design patent validity through IPR at the PTAB or asserting functionality defenses (arguing the design is dictated by function) remains an underutilized defense strategy in these cases.
Für F&E-Teams:
- • Conduct Freedom to Operate (FTO) analyses for product designs — not just utility features — before entering the U.S. market through online platforms.
- • Monitor design patent filings by competitors and IP assertion entities in your product category using USPTO Patent Full-Text Database (PatFT).
Freedom-to-Operate-Analyse (FTO)
Dieser Fall verdeutlicht die kritischen Risiken im Bereich des geistigen Eigentums beim Design von Konsumgütern, insbesondere für E-Commerce-Verkäufer. Wählen Sie Ihren nächsten Schritt:
📋 Die Auswirkungen dieses Falls verstehen
Informieren Sie sich über die spezifischen Risiken und Auswirkungen dieses Rechtsstreits.
- Alle zugehörigen Patente in diesem Technologiebereich anzeigen
- Sehen Sie, welche Unternehmen am aktivsten im Bereich Designpatente sind.
- Muster der Anspruchsauslegung verstehen
🔍 Das Risiko meines Produkts überprüfen
Führen Sie eine umfassende FTO-Analyse für Ihre eigene Technologie oder Ihr eigenes Produkt durch.
- Geben Sie Ihre Produktbeschreibung oder technischen Merkmale ein.
- KI identifiziert potenziell blockierende Patente
- Erhalten Sie einen umsetzbaren Risikobewertungsbericht
High Schedule A Risk
for products sold on online marketplaces
1 Geschmacksmuster
asserted in this case (USD927221S)
Frühzeitige Lösung
common in Schedule A cases
✅ Wichtigste Erkenntnisse
Schedule A design patent actions in N.D. Illinois continue to resolve via stipulated dismissal, often with undisclosed settlement terms.
Verwandte Rechtsprechung suchen →Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissals with prejudice signal substantive resolution — monitor for related enforcement actions against remaining co-defendants.
Präzedenzfälle erkunden →The absence of § 285 fee motions indicates neither party pursued an “exceptional case” designation.
Ergebnisse von Rechtsstreitigkeiten analysieren →Häufig gestellte Fragen
The case involved design patent USD927221S (Application No. US29/775514), protecting the ornamental design of an iron frame product.
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) between plaintiff Tang Zhaoshi and defendant Lzhevsk, with no attorney’s fees or costs awarded, indicating a privately negotiated settlement.
It reinforces the enforceability of design patents on consumer hardware products against online marketplace sellers and highlights the strategic effectiveness of Schedule A litigation procedures in the Northern District of Illinois.
Sind Sie bereit, Ihre Patentstrategie zu stärken?
Schließen Sie sich den über 18.000 Fachleuten aus dem Bereich des geistigen Eigentums an, die PatSnap Eureka nutzen, um mit KI-gestützter Präzision Recherchen zum Stand der Technik durchzuführen, Patentanmeldungen zu erstellen und Wettbewerbslandschaften zu analysieren.
Referenzen
- Berufungsgericht der Vereinigten Staaten für den Federal Circuit
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Design Patent Resources
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 171
- Cornell Legal Information Institute – Bundeszivilprozessordnung § 41
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database (PatFT)
Dieser Artikel dient ausschließlich zu Informationszwecken und stellt keine Rechtsberatung dar. Alle Angaben zu den Fällen stammen aus öffentlich zugänglichen Gerichtsakten. Informationen zu den Funktionen der Plattform finden Sie auf PatSnap.