Bounce Curl v. Schedule A Defendants: Design Patent Dismissed Without Prejudice in 43 Days
Bounce Curl, LLC filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting design patent USD1028527S against anonymous e-commerce sellers of hair care products. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 43 days after filing, leaving all claims legally re-fileable.
A 43-Day Schedule A Design Patent Action in the Northern District of Illinois
On November 5, 2024, Bounce Curl, LLC filed a design patent infringement complaint in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-11419) before Judge LaShonda A. Hunt. The suit targeted anonymous online sellers listed on a sealed Schedule A — a litigation format commonly used to pursue marketplace infringers on platforms such as Amazon, Wish, and AliExpress. The single patent asserted was USD1028527S, a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of hair drying and styling products.
On December 18, 2024 — just 43 days after filing — Bounce Curl filed a Notice of Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing the action without prejudice as to the sole remaining defendant, identified as makeup_store011. Because no defendants remained, the court terminated the case. No merits ruling was issued, and no judgment or injunction was entered. The dismissal without prejudice means Bounce Curl retains the legal right to re-file claims against the same or related parties.
A resolution of this speed in Schedule A litigation typically suggests one of several scenarios: a pre-litigation settlement or takedown agreement, failure to serve or locate the defendant, or a strategic decision to pursue infringers through platform enforcement rather than continued court action. The public record does not disclose whether any payment changed hands or whether the defendant’s listings were removed. The absence of defense counsel on record is consistent with the default posture common among Schedule A defendants.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 43 days
43 days — well below the median lifespan for Schedule A design patent cases in N.D. Ill.
Dismissed without prejudice: what Rule 41(a)(1) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal — no court approval required
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is a unilateral notice filed by the plaintiff before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. It requires no court order and takes effect immediately upon filing. Critically, it is ‘without prejudice’ — meaning the dismissal does not bar Bounce Curl from re-filing the same claims against makeup_store011 or related entities in a future action.
No merits adjudicationBounce Curl preserves its legal options entirely
A dismissal without prejudice leaves Bounce Curl’s design patent USD1028527S fully intact and enforceable. The company retains the right to re-file against makeup_store011 or pursue parallel enforcement through marketplace takedown procedures. This outcome is often used when a plaintiff has achieved its commercial objective — such as a listing removal or private settlement — without needing a formal judgment.
Claims remain livemakeup_store011 faces no judgment — but no finality either
The defendant, makeup_store011, exits this case without an adverse judgment, injunction, or damages award. However, the without-prejudice dismissal provides no res judicata protection — the same claims can be re-filed. The absence of defense counsel on record suggests the defendant may not have engaged with the litigation at all, which is typical of offshore Schedule A defendants in N.D. Ill. cases.
No res judicata shieldDesign patent enforcement via Schedule A remains a credible deterrent
Schedule A cases resolved this quickly — without reaching TRO or default judgment — suggest enforcement goals were met outside the courtroom, or that the plaintiff pivoted to platform-level remedies. For competing hair care brands and marketplace sellers, this case signals that design patent holders like Bounce Curl are actively monitoring online channels and willing to litigate. A 43-day case cycle carries real cost and disruption risk for targeted sellers.
Platform enforcement contextFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bounce Curl, LLC | Company | Hair care brand and design patent holder — asserting USD1028527S over styling product designsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers (‘Schedule A’ defendants); sole named defendant: makeup_store011Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Van Nacht | Attorney | Counsel for Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin R. Gaudio | Attorney | Counsel for Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Tyler Joseph | Attorney | Counsel for Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lucas Allen Peterson | Attorney | Counsel for Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge LaShonda A. Hunt | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — the plaintiff’s unilateral right to withdraw before any defendant answer or dispositive motion. The language ‘without prejudice as to the following Defendant: makeup_store011’ and the notation that ‘no remaining defendants’ exist are procedurally operative: they ended the case entirely with no court order required. No finding was made on infringement, validity, or damages. The patent USD1028527S is unaffected and fully enforceable.
USD1028527S — Ornamental Design for Hair Styling and Drying Products
USD1028527S is a U.S. design patent — identified by application number US29/880941 — protecting the ornamental appearance of hair drying and styling products. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the non-functional visual characteristics of a product, not its utility. They are enforceable against any article whose overall appearance is substantially similar to the patented design as judged by an ordinary observer. The products at issue in this case span a broad hair care range including drying tools, styling accessories, brushes, combs, shampoos, conditioners, oils, and hair vitamins.
Design patents in the hair care and beauty accessories space are strategically significant because the ornamental appearance of curling tools, diffusers, and styling accessories is often the primary differentiator between premium brands and low-cost e-commerce imitations. A single design registration like USD1028527S can be used to challenge multiple look-alike listings simultaneously via Schedule A complaints. For competitors and marketplace sellers, this patent flags a monitored design space where Bounce Curl has demonstrated willingness to litigate in federal court.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1028527S?
Any brand, manufacturer, or online retailer selling hair drying tools, styling accessories, brushes, diffusers, or related products with ornamental features that resemble the Bounce Curl design should assess FTO exposure. This is especially relevant for sellers active on Amazon, AliExpress, or similar marketplaces where Schedule A complaints can result in rapid account suspension alongside or prior to court action. The ‘ordinary observer’ test used in design patent infringement is notoriously expansive — a close visual resemblance, even without copying intent, can support a valid claim.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map ornamental design patent families, identify visual similarity clusters, and assess clearance risk before product launch. For hair care brands monitoring competitor enforcement, Eureka can track new design patent filings by Bounce Curl and related entities, flag prosecution history, and surface prior art that may bear on validity — all in a single workflow without manual docket searching.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1028527S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Cases in N.D. Illinois — Hair Care & Beauty
Browse comparable Schedule A design patent infringement actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois targeting hair care and beauty product sellers.
What this case signals for the hair care and beauty IP landscape
Schedule A design patent litigation is an increasingly common enforcement tool in the hair care and beauty sector. This case illustrates both its speed and its limits.
Schedule A tactics work fastest when backed by platform enforcement
Cases resolved in under 45 days without a TRO or default judgment typically suggest the plaintiff achieved its goal through an Amazon or marketplace takedown, not courtroom process. Brand owners in hair care and beauty should integrate platform enforcement alongside litigation filing to maximise speed and cost-efficiency.
Design patents on product appearance are potent tools against copycat sellers
USD1028527S covers the ornamental design of hair styling products — a category crowded with look-alike listings on e-commerce platforms. A single design patent registration can anchor a multi-defendant Schedule A complaint, enabling simultaneous action against dozens of sellers. Brands without design patent coverage in this category face meaningful enforcement asymmetry.
Bounce v Partnerships — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on December 18, 2024, 43 days after filing. Bounce Curl filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) as to the sole remaining defendant, makeup_store011. No merits ruling was issued, and the design patent USD1028527S remains enforceable.
Bounce Curl asserted design patent USD1028527S (application number US29/880941), which protects the ornamental appearance of hair drying and styling products. Design patents cover the visual appearance of a product rather than its function, and are commonly used in beauty and personal care enforcement actions.
A dismissal without prejudice means the claims were not decided on the merits and Bounce Curl retains the full right to re-file the same or similar claims against makeup_store011 or related defendants. The defendant receives no res judicata protection. The patent itself is unaffected and remains a valid enforcement asset.
Schedule A cases often resolve rapidly because plaintiffs leverage the threat of temporary restraining orders and asset freezes to prompt marketplace takedowns or private settlements before defendants engage. When enforcement goals are met through platform action or confidential agreement, plaintiffs typically file a Rule 41 dismissal rather than pursue a default judgment. A 43-day resolution, as seen here, is consistent with this pattern.
The plaintiff is Bounce Curl, LLC, a hair care brand and holder of design patent USD1028527S. The products at issue include hair drying products, hair styling products, hairbrushes and combs, hair accessories, shampoos and conditioners, hair vitamins, oils, and perfumes — all product categories commonly sold by anonymous third-party sellers on online marketplaces.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.