AJ’s Nifty Products v. Schedule A Defendants — Dismissed With Prejudice
AJ’s Nifty Products filed a multi-defendant patent infringement suit in the Northern District of Illinois against dozens of Amazon marketplace sellers, asserting US11445840B1 across four ASINs. The case concluded with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice as to defendant WKIEASON US after 513 days of litigation.
Multi-seller Amazon enforcement ends in stipulated dismissal
On April 29, 2024, AJ’s Nifty Products filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-03461) against a wide Schedule A roster of Amazon marketplace sellers — including Digital Family Co., Ltd., Holy Party, JieLa Co. Ltd., Lapinchen, mollensiuer, PuXun, SanHeEc, We Outsyde, Yumech2020, and WKIEASON US, among many others — asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,445,840 (App. No. US17/016012) across Amazon ASINs B0C6DTR8DS, B079QMGQR3, B07VBJ7QFS, and B0CLJKKVMP.
The case closed on September 24, 2025, via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice as to defendant WKIEASON US (Seller ID A37HARKSJKCEA6), with each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against this specific defendant, suggesting the parties likely reached a private resolution — potentially a license, settlement payment, or cessation-of-sales agreement — even though no financial terms appear in the public record.
The 513-day duration, combined with a mutual cost-bearing arrangement rather than fee-shifting, is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a contested win for either side. The public docket does not disclose whether other Schedule A defendants were resolved separately or remain outstanding. The breadth of the defendant list — spanning numerous Chinese-origin Amazon sellers — is characteristic of coordinated enforcement campaigns targeting e-commerce marketplace infringers of consumer product patents.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 513 days
513 days — longer than the median N.D. Illinois patent dismissal, suggesting active negotiation before resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement of all parties who have appeared. When filed ‘with prejudice,’ it operates as a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata — AJ’s Nifty Products cannot re-file the same patent claims against WKIEASON US in any federal court. This is a binding, permanent end to the dispute between these two specific parties.
Final — no re-filing permittedPlaintiff forecloses future action against this seller
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, AJ’s Nifty Products permanently waives its right to pursue WKIEASON US again on US11445840B1. This is typically only accepted when the plaintiff has secured a satisfactory outcome — such as a private license, a cease-and-desist undertaking, or a settlement payment — making continued litigation unnecessary. The patent itself remains fully valid and enforceable against other parties not covered by this stipulation.
Patent remains enforceable vs. othersWKIEASON US gains permanent litigation peace on this patent
WKIEASON US (Seller ID A37HARKSJKCEA6) is permanently shielded from further suit by AJ’s Nifty Products on US11445840B1 claims arising from these products. The mutual cost-bearing provision — no fee-shifting — suggests neither side conceded wrongdoing or prevailing-party status publicly. The seller may have agreed to modify or discontinue the accused Amazon listings as part of any confidential arrangement.
Res judicata protection securedSchedule A enforcement still active for remaining defendants
The stipulation covers only WKIEASON US. The dozens of other named defendants — including Digital Family Co., Ltd., Holy Party, JieLa Co. Ltd., and many others — are not protected by this dismissal. AJ’s Nifty Products retains full enforcement rights against them. Amazon sellers operating in the same product category who are not party to this stipulation should treat US11445840B1 as an active litigation risk across the four identified ASINs.
Risk live for other Schedule A sellersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Aj’s Nifty Products | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on the Attached Schedule A | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Digital Family Co., Ltd | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Holy Party | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | JieLa Co. Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lapinchen | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | mollensiuer | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others too numerous to list: thinsont, Linpr, OZTDL, aaaaWang, Xiamen Herisen commerical co. LTD, Elezay, Herculean Merchs, Aupup, BROKER SHOP, PTZH, simpletome, Qingdao Aosang Xingge Network Technology Co., Ltd., Your Creative Life, Bitray, WKIEASON US, hai889 6, Pld LLC, Dsigo, qingchunzhiyue, Rivcadio Store, Chengbin electronic Co., Ltd., Traveler’s Haven, MayaStar, XU-ming, JOINDO Direct, AMZCOOL, KUNGU Co. Ltd, Dmoera, monraily, MASTERDUAN, Guangzhou Guangqian electronic commerce Co., LTD, Amz Loole-us, Rehomy Store (69), HAOOIE, Beautyflier | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | PuXun | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | SanHeEc | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | We Outsyde | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Yumech2020 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Adam Campbell | Attorney | Counsel for Aj’s Nifty ProductsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward L. Bishop | Attorney | Counsel for Aj’s Nifty ProductsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas S. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Aj’s Nifty ProductsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sameeul Haque | Attorney | Counsel for Aj’s Nifty ProductsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Aj’s Nifty ProductsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Aj’s Nifty ProductsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeannice W. Appenteng | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring signed agreement from all appearing parties — a procedurally clean exit that carries full res judicata effect. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is significant: it goes beyond a mere voluntary withdrawal, permanently extinguishing AJ’s Nifty Products’ claims against WKIEASON US on these patent claims. The explicit inclusion of mutual cost-bearing — rather than silence on fees — suggests both parties actively negotiated the dismissal terms, consistent with a private commercial resolution rather than unilateral abandonment.
US11445840B1 — Consumer product patent asserted across four Amazon ASINs
U.S. Patent No. 11,445,840 (Application No. US17/016012) is the sole patent asserted in this action. The ‘840 patent was asserted against four Amazon ASINs — B0C6DTR8DS, B079QMGQR3, B07VBJ7QFS, and B0CLJKKVMP — indicating the plaintiff contends its claims cover a range of competing marketplace listings. The application number prefix (US17/) indicates a filing in the September 2020 window, placing it in the post-COVID consumer product innovation surge. The patent is held by AJ’s Nifty Products, a plaintiff whose name suggests a focus on novelty or utility consumer goods.
Consumer product patents asserted through Schedule A campaigns in N.D. Illinois typically cover design or utility features that are readily visible in product listings — making ASIN identification and evidence collection straightforward. For competitors and Amazon sellers in adjacent product categories, US11445840B1 represents an active enforcement risk: the case’s resolution with prejudice confirms the patent survived litigation without any reported invalidity challenge, leaving its claims intact. Sellers sourcing from Chinese manufacturers in similar product categories should treat this patent as a live clearance obligation.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11445840B1?
Any brand, reseller, or Amazon marketplace seller offering consumer products in the same category as ASINs B0C6DTR8DS, B079QMGQR3, B07VBJ7QFS, or B0CLJKKVMP should evaluate their exposure to US11445840B1. The patent survived a 513-day enforcement campaign without an apparent invalidity challenge, suggesting it presents a credible claim scope. Given the plaintiff’s demonstrated willingness to pursue dozens of sellers simultaneously — and to enforce via TRO and asset freeze mechanisms — the cost of an FTO assessment is materially lower than the cost of a Schedule A defense.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US11445840B1 against your product specifications and flag overlap risk before you list. Eureka also surfaces related prior art, continuation applications, and family members that may extend the patent’s coverage to adjacent product configurations. For Amazon sellers in particular, Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools can alert you to new filings by AJ’s Nifty Products before a complaint is filed — giving you time to design around or seek a proactive license.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11445840B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Amazon marketplace patent enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving Schedule A consumer product patent enforcement in the Northern District of Illinois, targeting Amazon marketplace sellers across multiple ASINs.
What this case signals for Amazon marketplace IP enforcement
Schedule A enforcement against e-commerce sellers is a growing litigation strategy — this case illustrates both its reach and its resolution dynamics.
Schedule A filings enable rapid, broad enforcement against Amazon sellers
By filing a single action against dozens of sellers under a Schedule A complaint, patent holders like AJ’s Nifty Products achieve broad court jurisdiction efficiently. This tactic — common in N.D. Illinois — allows simultaneous TRO applications and asset freezes across multiple Seller IDs. Brands facing similar marketplace infringement should evaluate this strategy for consumer product patents.
Mutual cost-bearing terms signal negotiated resolution, not litigation defeat
When a Schedule A case resolves with each party bearing its own costs, it typically indicates the defendant provided something of value — a license fee, removal of listings, or future sales restrictions — rather than the plaintiff simply abandoning a weak claim. Patent holders in similar enforcement campaigns should structure settlements to include ASIN removal obligations enforceable via Amazon’s own IP complaint mechanisms.
Products v Individuals — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars AJ’s Nifty Products from re-filing the same patent infringement claims (US11445840B1) against WKIEASON US in any federal court. It has res judicata effect and is treated as a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes. It does not affect the patent’s enforceability against other defendants.
Yes. The stipulated dismissal covers only the claims between AJ’s Nifty Products and WKIEASON US. The patent itself was not invalidated, cancelled, or found unenforceable. All other Amazon sellers not party to this stipulation remain fully exposed to enforcement action under US11445840B1.
A Schedule A complaint consolidates claims against many defendants — often dozens of online marketplace sellers — into a single action. N.D. Illinois is a preferred venue for this strategy due to its relatively plaintiff-friendly TRO practice, which allows courts to freeze defendant payment processor accounts (including Amazon disbursements) early in the case, creating significant settlement pressure on defendants.
The complaint identified four Amazon ASINs as accused products: B0C6DTR8DS, B079QMGQR3, B07VBJ7QFS, and B0CLJKKVMP. These ASINs span multiple seller listings, which is why the defendant list includes dozens of separate marketplace sellers potentially offering the same or similar products under different storefronts.
When both parties agree each will bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees — rather than one paying the other’s — it typically signals a negotiated resolution rather than a clear win for either side. In Schedule A enforcement contexts, this arrangement is consistent with the defendant agreeing to remove infringing listings or pay a confidential settlement amount, while the plaintiff accepts that recovery without conceding any fee-shifting entitlement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.