Bounce Curl v. Schedule A Defendants: Design Patent Case Ends in Voluntary Dismissal

Updated on Dec. 2, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team

Introduction

Bounce Curl, LLC has voluntarily dismissed its design patent infringement action against multiple online marketplace sellers in the Illinois Northern District Court, concluding a 61-day litigation involving an accused hairbrush product. The case, presided over by Chief Judge Georgia N. Alexakis, ended without prejudice on October 22, 2025, allowing Bounce Curl to potentially refile claims in the future.

This hairbrush patent infringement case exemplifies a growing litigation trend: established consumer brands pursuing “Schedule A” defendants—typically unidentified partnerships or unincorporated associations accused of selling infringing products through online marketplaces. For patent attorneys tracking Illinois Northern District patent cases, the rapid voluntary dismissal signals likely pre-litigation resolution or strategic repositioning by the plaintiff.

Explore similar cases on Patsnap Eureka IP

Case Summary

Case Overview

The Parties

Bounce Curl, LLC is a consumer haircare brand that holds intellectual property protecting its product designs.

The defendants were identified as “The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,” a common pleading approach in e-commerce patent infringement cases targeting multiple sellers simultaneously. The specifically dismissed defendant, KeHaoHeShangMao, was among the Schedule A parties.

The Patent at Issue

The asserted patent, D1028527 (Application No. 29/880941), is a design patent protecting ornamental aspects of a hairbrush. Design patents cover visual appearance rather than functional features, making claim construction focused on the overall visual impression.

Research patent families on Patsnap Eureka IP

The Accused Products

Bounce Curl alleged that hairbrush products sold by the Schedule A defendants infringed the ornamental design claimed in D1028527. In design patent cases, infringement analysis applies the “ordinary observer” test—whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff retained Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., with attorneys Amy Crout Ziegler, Andrew Daniel Burnham, Jennifer Van Nacht, and Justin R. Gaudio handling the matter. No defense counsel appeared on record, consistent with Schedule A cases where defendants often do not enter formal appearances.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

⚖️ August 22, 2025: Bounce Curl filed the complaint in Illinois Northern District Court, a venue with established patent case procedures.

⚖️ 61-Day Duration: The case proceeded rapidly, significantly shorter than typical patent litigation timelines. This compressed timeline suggests early resolution efforts.

⚖️ October 22, 2025: Plaintiff filed voluntary dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1), specifically dismissing claims against KeHaoHeShangMao without prejudice.

💡 Key Insight: Dismissal “without prejudice” preserves Bounce Curl’s right to refile against KeHaoHeShangMao if future infringement occurs, maintaining strategic options while concluding current litigation.

Chief Judge Georgia N. Alexakis presided over the matter through its termination.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case concluded via voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1). This procedural termination means:

• No judicial determination of patent validity or infringement occurred
• No damages were awarded
• No injunctive relief was entered
• Bounce Curl retains the right to refile claims

Track litigation trends with Patsnap Eureka IP

Verdict Cause Analysis

The dismissal notice specifically identified KeHaoHeShangMao as the dismissed party, suggesting selective resolution within the broader Schedule A defendant pool. Common reasons for such voluntary dismissals include:

• Settlement or licensing agreement reached with the specific defendant
• Cease-and-desist compliance—defendant removed accused products
• Identification challenges—inability to properly serve the defendant
• Strategic refocusing—concentrating resources on other defendants

Legal Significance

While this case produced no precedential ruling on design patent infringement standards, it contributes to Schedule A litigation data. The Illinois Northern District Court remains a venue for these actions, and practitioners may monitor docket patterns for judicial approaches to multi-defendant e-commerce cases.

💡 Key Insight: Schedule A litigation resolution timelines vary based on defendant response and pre-litigation strategy. The 61-day resolution here reflects rapid case conclusion.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Holders:

• Design patents provide enforcement tools against alleged infringers
• Schedule A pleading enables multi-defendant actions
• Freedom to operate (FTO) clearance should include design patent searches

For Accused Infringers:

• Early engagement may achieve dismissal terms
• Dismissal without prejudice leaves potential future exposure

For R&D Teams:

• 🔬 Design patent protection requires distinct visual elements
• 🔬 Product design reviews should assess competitive design patent landscapes

Industry & Competitive Implications

The Bounce Curl litigation reflects broader 2025 design patent infringement patterns in consumer products. Brands may leverage IP enforcement against online sellers distributing allegedly infringing products.

📊 Market Context: Design patent enforcement actions can serve brand protection objectives. For Bounce Curl, asserting design patent rights demonstrates IP portfolio utilization.

📊 E-Commerce Enforcement Patterns: The Schedule A approach allows joinder of multiple defendants in a single action, though individual defendants may be dismissed separately as the case evolves.

Analyze patent landscapes on Patsnap Eureka IP

Companies in competitive consumer product markets may consider design patent portfolios and monitoring programs. Prior art searching before product launches can inform infringement risk assessment.

Key Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys:

• ⚖️ Schedule A litigation remains used for multi-defendant e-commerce cases
• ⚖️ Illinois Northern District Court handles patent cases with established procedures
• ⚖️ FRCP 41(a)(1) dismissals preserve future refiling options
• ⚖️ Sub-90-day resolution is possible in certain cases

For IP Professionals:

• 📊 Design patents provide enforceable rights for product ornamentation
• 📊 Monitor competitor filings for enforcement pattern intelligence
• 📊 Dismissal without prejudice maintains potential defendant exposure

For R&D Teams:

• 🔬 Conduct design patent clearance before product launches
• 🔬 Document independent design development processes

Start your patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP

FAQ

What patent was involved in the Bounce Curl case? Design patent D1028527 covering hairbrush ornamental design was asserted against the defendants.

Why was the case dismissed? Bounce Curl voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1). Specific reasons were not disclosed in court filings.

Can Bounce Curl refile this case? Yes. Dismissal “without prejudice” preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile claims against the dismissed defendants.

For patent litigation research and competitive intelligence, explore Patsnap Eureka IP.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis presented reflects publicly available case information and should not be relied upon for legal decision-making. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel for advice regarding specific patent litigation matters. Case outcomes and legal interpretations may vary based on jurisdiction and individual circumstances.