Bounce Curl, LLC v. Schedule A Defendants: Hairbrush Design Patent Case Dismissed

Case Overview

The Parties

Patents at Issue

This case involved one design patent covering the ornamental design of a hairbrush, crucial to Bounce Curl’s product line and market position:

• • US D1028527S — Ornamental design of a hairbrush

Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of a product. USD1028527S covers the specific visual design of Bounce Curl’s hairbrush, meaning infringement analysis centers on whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product’s appearance substantially similar to the patented design.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case was filed on March 18, 2025, in the Illinois Northern District Court, a preferred jurisdiction for Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions due to its familiarity with such litigation, including the issuance of temporary restraining orders (TROs) to freeze defendant assets and marketplace accounts. Presiding Judge Edmond E. Chang oversaw the matter. The rapid 86-day duration from filing to closure (June 12, 2025) is consistent with cases that resolve through early negotiation or settlement following the filing of a TRO or preliminary injunction – procedural tools commonly used to compel defendant engagement.

Outcome

The case was dismissed **without prejudice** pursuant to **Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)**, specifically covering defendant Wang Zongyan and the Individuals and Entities Operating Wang Zongyan. No damages amount was disclosed on the public docket, and no final judgment was entered. The without-prejudice designation preserves Bounce Curl’s right to refile claims against these parties if circumstances warrant.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The stated verdict cause is **infringement action** — meaning the case was initiated and structured around allegations of design patent infringement of USD1028527S. However, the resolution via Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal means the court never reached the merits of infringement, validity, or claim scope.

Rule 41(a)(1) Significance: This dismissal mechanism allows a plaintiff to withdraw claims without court order, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment. The absence of any defendant counsel of record suggests Wang Zongyan did not formally appear, which is consistent with the early-exit pattern observed when Schedule A defendants either: (a) reach a private settlement, (b) cease the accused activity, or (c) cannot be served effectively.

Strategic Turning Point: The selective nature of this dismissal — targeting Wang Zongyan specifically while the broader Schedule A framework may remain active or was separately resolved — indicates Bounce Curl’s litigation team identified and engaged this defendant individually. This is a standard enforcement campaign tactic: use the Schedule A structure to cast a wide net, then resolve defendants individually through cease-and-desist compliance, licensing agreements, or negotiated settlements.

Legal Significance

This case does not produce binding precedent, as no substantive rulings were issued. However, it contributes to the **observable pattern of design patent enforcement** in the consumer beauty and accessories sector, specifically:

• Design patents on consumer product aesthetics are actively enforced against e-commerce sellers.
• The Illinois Northern District remains a preferred forum for Schedule A actions involving design IP.
• Voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a common exit mechanism once enforcement goals — typically cessation of infringing sales or private settlement — are achieved.