Bounce Curl, LLC v. Schedule A Defendants: Hairbrush Design Patent Dispute Ends in Voluntary Dismissal

Introduction

In a swift conclusion to a design patent enforcement action, Bounce Curl, LLC voluntarily dismissed its hairbrush infringement lawsuit against a group of anonymous online marketplace sellers — closing case number 1:24-cv-11392 in just 77 days. Filed in the Northern District of Illinois on November 5, 2024, and terminated on January 21, 2025, the case centered on alleged infringement of design patent USD1028527S, which protects the ornamental appearance of a hairbrush.

The action, styled against “The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,” reflects a well-established litigation model commonly deployed against offshore e-commerce sellers suspected of distributing infringing products through platforms like Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, and similar online storefronts. While the case concluded without a merits determination, its rapid trajectory — from filing to voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) — offers instructive lessons for IP counsel pursuing or defending against design patent enforcement actions in the consumer products space.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This case centered on design patent USD1028527S, which protects the ornamental design of a hairbrush:

• • Patent Number: USD1028527S
• • Application Number: US29/880941
• • Patent Type: Design Patent
• • Protected Subject Matter: The ornamental design of a hairbrush

Design patents protect the visual, non-functional appearance of a product. 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 product substantially similar in appearance to the patented design.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, presided over by Chief Judge Jorge L. Alonso. The Northern District of Illinois — particularly in Chicago — has become the de facto national hub for Schedule A design patent and trademark enforcement actions, owing to its favorable procedural practices including the routine granting of temporary restraining orders (TROs) and asset freezes early in litigation.

The 77-day duration is characteristic of Schedule A cases that resolve through settlement or voluntary dismissal rather than contested merits proceedings. Specifically named defendants — Hao Zhu, JianT, kuangbiaobaihuo, lailaiyueke, and lvguangshangwu — were dismissed by the plaintiff under Rule 41(a)(1), suggesting negotiated resolutions may have been reached privately prior to dismissal.

Timeline

Outcome

The case was terminated via voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), filed by Bounce Curl, LLC. The dismissal specifically named five defendants: Hao Zhu, JianT, kuangbiaobaihuo, lailaiyueke, and lvguangshangwu. No damages award, injunctive relief, or consent judgment was publicly recorded. The specific terms of any private resolution — including whether monetary compensation or behavioral injunctions were agreed upon — were not disclosed in the public record.

Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) does not constitute an adjudication on the merits and carries no precedential value regarding the validity or enforceability of patent USD1028527S.

Legal Significance

While this case produced no binding precedent, it illustrates several procedurally significant aspects of Schedule A design patent litigation:

• • Efficiency of the Northern District of Illinois framework for consumer product design enforcement.
• • Selective dismissal mechanics — individually named defendants can be dismissed piecemeal as settlements are reached, without terminating claims against remaining defendants.
• • Design patent USD1028527S remains unchallenged — its validity was neither confirmed nor denied, leaving it fully enforceable for future assertions.