Binglin Zhong v. YongerTool: Charge Protector Design Patent Voluntarily Dismissed
Plaintiff Binglin Zhong filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois asserting USD1008977S — a design patent covering a Charge Protector — against a Schedule A roster of online marketplace sellers. The case closed in 102 days via voluntary dismissal, with the public record silent on whether prejudice was specified.
Design patent enforcement against online marketplace sellers ends in voluntary exit
On November 15, 2024, plaintiff Binglin Zhong filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-11783) alleging infringement of design patent USD1008977S, which covers the ornamental design of a Charge Protector device. The defendants were identified collectively as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations in Schedule A’ — a common structural approach in Schedule A marketplace enforcement actions targeting multiple anonymous online sellers simultaneously.
The case closed on February 25, 2025, after plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on February 24 referencing FRCP 4(a)(1)(A)(i) and the Court’s Order at DE 121. The notice specifically names YongerTool (Store ID: AYEPCP9TQXX19) as the dismissed defendant, and references previously served Preliminary Injunction evidence. The basis of termination is recorded as voluntary dismissal, but the public record does not expressly state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The 102-day duration is consistent with Schedule A cases that resolve quickly — either through early settlement, default, or strategic withdrawal after an injunction has been leveraged. The reference to a Preliminary Injunction in the dismissal notice suggests the plaintiff may have used the threat of injunctive relief as negotiating leverage. What remains unknown from the public record is whether any monetary settlement was reached with YongerTool or any other Schedule A defendants prior to dismissal.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 102 days
102 days — faster than the median N.D. Illinois patent case lifecycle
Voluntarily dismissed: what the record does and does not tell us
Voluntary dismissal under FRCP — prejudice status unknown
The plaintiff invoked FRCP 4(a)(1)(A)(i) alongside the Court’s Order at DE 121 to effect dismissal. Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) can be filed with or without prejudice; if without prejudice, the plaintiff retains the right to refile. The public docket does not expressly specify which applies here, meaning the enforceability posture of USD1008977S against YongerTool remains technically ambiguous from the public record alone.
Prejudice status: unconfirmedWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars re-assertion of the same claims against the same defendant. A dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile. Rule 41(a)(1) dismissals by notice are generally without prejudice unless stated otherwise; court-ordered dismissals under Rule 41(a)(2) may specify otherwise. Here, the basis is recorded simply as ‘Voluntary dismissal’ — practitioners should not assume either outcome without reviewing the underlying docket order at DE 121.
Review DE 121 for prejudice termsYongerTool exits the case — but on what terms?
YongerTool is the specifically named defendant in the dismissal notice, suggesting it was the primary or final remaining target. The reference to a previously filed Preliminary Injunction suggests injunctive relief may have been served or leveraged. Whether YongerTool paid any settlement amount, agreed to cease sales, or simply benefited from a clean exit is not disclosed in the public record. Other Schedule A defendants may have resolved earlier in the proceedings.
Settlement terms not publicSchedule A enforcement: preliminary injunctions as leverage tools
This case follows a well-recognised enforcement pattern: a design patent holder files a Schedule A action against multiple online marketplace sellers, seeks a TRO or preliminary injunction to freeze assets or listings, and then resolves claims individually — often through private settlement. The voluntary dismissal of YongerTool after a preliminary injunction had been served is consistent with this playbook. Sellers of similar Charge Protector products should treat USD1008977S as an active enforcement risk.
Active enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Binglin Zhong | Individual | Design patent holder asserting USD1008977S covering a Charge Protector ornamental designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations in Schedule A | Individual | Online marketplace sellers, including YongerTool (Store ID: AYEPCP9TQXX19), identified via Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Michael Dewitty | Attorney | Counsel for Binglin ZhongSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dewitty And Associates, Chtd. | Law Firm | Representing Binglin ZhongSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sunil R. Harjani | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice is procedural rather than merits-based — no court finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope was issued. The reference to FRCP 4(a)(1)(A)(i) alongside DE 121 suggests the dismissal may have been conditioned by a prior court order. The specific identification of YongerTool by Store ID signals targeted resolution rather than a blanket withdrawal, and the mention of preliminary injunction evidence implies the plaintiff considered its enforcement position sufficiently strong to use as leverage prior to exit.
USD1008977S — Charge Protector ornamental design patent
USD1008977S is a U.S. design patent — filed under application number US29/842973 — protecting the ornamental appearance of a Charge Protector product. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. §171 cover the visual, non-functional aspects of a manufactured article. Protection is determined by the claimed drawings, meaning any product that is substantially similar in appearance to the patented design as perceived by an ordinary observer may constitute infringement — a standard that is often easier to satisfy than utility patent infringement thresholds.
In the consumer electronics accessories market, Charge Protector products — typically cable protectors, port savers, or outlet guards — are widely manufactured by third-party sellers on platforms such as Amazon and Temu. A design patent in this space provides the holder with a commercially significant enforcement tool, since marketplace sellers frequently copy successful product aesthetics without functional differentiation. USD1008977S represents a relatively narrow but tactically valuable IP asset for blocking copycat listings and supporting TRO motions.
Should you run an FTO against USD1008977S before selling Charge Protectors?
Any manufacturer, importer, or online seller of Charge Protector products — particularly those sold on Amazon, eBay, or other marketplace platforms — should consider conducting an FTO review against USD1008977S before scaling listings. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is actively willing to enforce: a multi-defendant Schedule A action was filed, a preliminary injunction was pursued, and targeted dismissals followed. The risk of account freezing via ex parte TRO is material for sellers whose product design visually resembles the patented Charge Protector.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to run automated freedom-to-operate analysis against design patents like USD1008977S, mapping visual similarity and claim scope against your product’s appearance. Eureka can surface related design patent families, identify potential design-around options, and flag active enforcement patterns — giving your team the intelligence needed to make informed listing and sourcing decisions before committing to inventory.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1008977S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois
Browse comparable design patent Schedule A enforcement actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois targeting online marketplace sellers of consumer electronics accessories.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement in e-commerce
Schedule A litigation is a growing enforcement channel for design patent holders targeting online marketplace sellers — this case illustrates the typical lifecycle.
Design patents are potent tools against marketplace sellers
USD1008977S demonstrates how a single design patent can anchor a multi-defendant Schedule A action. The ornamental design scope of design patents makes them relatively fast to assert and difficult for marketplace sellers to design around quickly — making TRO and preliminary injunction motions particularly effective early in proceedings.
Voluntary dismissal after injunction service suggests leverage achieved
The timing — dismissal filed the day after the preliminary injunction evidence was presented to the defendant — is consistent with a resolution reached under threat of injunctive relief. Practitioners advising marketplace sellers should treat receipt of injunction papers as a critical inflection point requiring immediate legal response, not a procedural formality.
Zhong v Partnerships — key questions answered
USD1008977S (application no. US29/842973) is a U.S. design patent asserted by plaintiff Binglin Zhong covering the ornamental design of a Charge Protector product. Design patents protect the visual appearance of a product rather than its function. It was the sole patent asserted in Case No. 1:24-cv-11783 in the Northern District of Illinois.
The public record identifies the basis of termination as ‘Voluntary dismissal’ but does not expressly state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The dismissal notice references FRCP 4(a)(1)(A)(i) and Court Order DE 121. Practitioners should review DE 121 directly to confirm the prejudice status, as this determines whether the plaintiff may refile against YongerTool.
A Schedule A lawsuit names multiple defendants — typically anonymous online marketplace sellers — collectively in one action, with their identities listed in an attached schedule. This approach is commonly used in design patent enforcement against e-commerce platforms such as Amazon. It allows a single plaintiff to pursue numerous infringers simultaneously, and supports early TRO and asset-freeze motions before defendants are formally notified.
The dismissal notice states that plaintiff presented evidence of a previously filed Preliminary Injunction provided to defendant YongerTool. This suggests injunctive relief had already been sought and potentially served. The sequence — injunction served, then voluntary dismissal filed — is consistent with a pattern where injunctive pressure leads to a private resolution, after which the plaintiff withdraws the public action.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-11783) and assigned to Judge Sunil R. Harjani. It was a first-instance (trial-level) proceeding. The case was filed on November 15, 2024, and closed on February 25, 2025, lasting 102 days.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.