Bounce Curl v. Schedule A Defendants: Hairbrush Design Patent Dismissed in 61 Days
Bounce Curl, LLC brought a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against unnamed e-commerce sellers over USD1028527S, a registered hairbrush design. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice as to defendant KeHaoHeShangMao after just 61 days — a timeline consistent with a negotiated resolution or strategic withdrawal.
Schedule A design patent case resolved in under two months
On August 22, 2025, Bounce Curl, LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:25-cv-10072) against a group of anonymous online sellers identified as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ The action alleged infringement of USD1028527S, a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design of a hairbrush (Application No. 29/880941). The case was assigned to Judge Georgia N. Alexakis and prosecuted by Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., a firm with an established practice in Schedule A e-commerce enforcement.
On October 22, 2025 — exactly 61 days after filing — Bounce Curl voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice as to the specifically named defendant KeHaoHeShangMao and the individuals and entities operating that storefront, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A without-prejudice dismissal leaves the underlying claims intact: Bounce Curl retains the legal right to refile the same infringement claims against this defendant in the future. No fee award or consent judgment was entered on the public record.
The 61-day resolution is notably swift, even by the accelerated standards of Schedule A litigation. Cases of this type in the N.D. Ill. frequently resolve quickly once defendants are identified and contacted. The absence of any recorded settlement agreement or fee award means the precise terms — if any — driving this dismissal remain unknown from the public record. It is equally plausible that Bounce Curl secured a private undertaking from KeHaoHeShangMao, obtained what it needed through expedited discovery, or simply determined that further litigation against this particular defendant was not commercially warranted.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 61 days
61 days — well below the median Schedule A case duration in the N.D. Ill.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) lets plaintiffs exit without burning their claims
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) requires no court order and, unless specified otherwise, operates without prejudice. This means the plaintiff’s infringement claims against KeHaoHeShangMao are not adjudicated on the merits — they are preserved. Bounce Curl could, in principle, refile the same design patent claims in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
Claims preservedThe public record is silent on final settlement terms
The dismissal is expressly without prejudice, meaning no court has ruled that Bounce Curl’s claims are extinguished. In Schedule A cases, without-prejudice exits sometimes follow private agreements (e.g., cease-and-desist undertakings or confidential settlements) that do not appear on the docket. The public record does not confirm whether any such agreement exists here — both outcomes remain plausible.
Terms not publicKeHaoHeShangMao exits without an adverse judgment — for now
The dismissal without prejudice means KeHaoHeShangMao faces no injunction, damages award, or consent judgment from this proceeding. However, the defendant is not legally insulated from future action: if Bounce Curl or another rights holder identifies continued infringement of USD1028527S, a fresh complaint could be filed. The without-prejudice nature of the exit provides no safe harbour.
No adverse judgmentDesign patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers remains active
This case is consistent with a broader pattern of design patent holders using Schedule A filings in the N.D. Ill. to identify, enjoin, and negotiate with anonymous online infringers. A swift voluntary dismissal typically suggests the enforcement objective — whether deterrence, identification, or a private resolution — was achieved quickly. Other sellers of competing hairbrush designs should treat this filing as a signal that Bounce Curl is actively monitoring the market.
Active enforcement postureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bounce Curl, LLC | Company | Haircare brand and design patent holder — holder of USD1028527SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | KeHaoHeShangMao — anonymous e-commerce storefront operator named in Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Daniel Burnham | 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 law firm | Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Georgia N. Alexakis | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal language — ‘without prejudice as to KeHaoHeShangMao’ — is precise and deliberate. By naming the specific defendant entity, the dismissal leaves open the possibility that other Schedule A defendants remain active in parallel proceedings or future filings. No merits ruling was issued; the design patent USD1028527S has not been adjudicated as valid or infringed. Both parties exit this specific proceeding without a court-imposed obligation, but Bounce Curl’s IP position is legally unchanged.
USD1028527S — Ornamental Hairbrush Design Patent
USD1028527S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a hairbrush, filed under application number 29/880941. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture. Unlike utility patents, infringement is assessed using the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design. The ‘USD’ prefix and ‘S’ suffix confirm this is a granted design patent, not a utility or plant patent.
In the highly competitive haircare accessories market — where many products are sourced from the same overseas manufacturers and sold under different brand names — design patents are a critical differentiator. A design registration like USD1028527S can effectively block look-alike products across entire e-commerce platforms. For Bounce Curl, this patent represents a direct commercial barrier against competitors who replicate the product’s visual identity without engaging in independent design development.
Should your team run an FTO check against USD1028527S?
Any brand, manufacturer, or seller currently offering a hairbrush that resembles the design claimed in USD1028527S should conduct a freedom-to-operate assessment before launching or continuing sales — particularly on Amazon, Etsy, or other platforms targeted by Schedule A campaigns. The ordinary observer standard means even minor visual similarities can constitute infringement. This is especially relevant for private-label brands sourcing designs from manufacturers who may supply multiple sellers.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of USD1028527S against your product design, identify design-around opportunities, and surface the prior art landscape relevant to hairbrush ornamental design. For teams operating in the consumer goods space, automated design patent monitoring via Eureka can also flag new filings from rights holders before they ripen into enforcement actions.
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 the N.D. Illinois
Cases involving design patent enforcement against anonymous e-commerce defendants in the Northern District of Illinois, with haircare or consumer goods products at issue.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement in e-commerce
Schedule A design patent actions are fast-moving. This case illustrates how quickly outcomes — and exits — can occur.
Speed matters: Schedule A cases can resolve in under 90 days
The 61-day lifecycle of this case underscores how rapidly Schedule A enforcement actions move in the N.D. Ill. Rights holders can achieve injunctive relief, asset freezes, or negotiated exits in timescales that would be impossible in conventional patent litigation. For design patent holders in consumer goods, this is a commercially significant enforcement tool.
Without-prejudice exits preserve future enforcement rights
Bounce Curl’s use of Rule 41(a)(1) without prejudice is tactically flexible. It signals the action achieved its near-term objective while keeping the door open. Defendants who believe a voluntary dismissal grants them immunity from future claims should be cautious — the patent remains in force and enforcement rights are fully intact.
Bounce v Partnerships — key questions answered
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) means Bounce Curl chose to end this specific proceeding against KeHaoHeShangMao without a court ruling on the merits. The patent claims are preserved — Bounce Curl can refile the same infringement action in the future. No damages, injunction, or fee award was entered against the defendant.
The case involves USD1028527S, a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design of a hairbrush (Application No. 29/880941). Plaintiff Bounce Curl, LLC alleged that the anonymous e-commerce defendants infringed this design patent by selling products visually similar to the patented hairbrush design.
KeHaoHeShangMao is identified as one of the anonymous online storefront operators named in the Schedule A attachment to Bounce Curl’s complaint. Schedule A litigation in the N.D. Ill. is commonly used to pursue groups of anonymous e-commerce sellers, often based overseas, who are identified by username or store name rather than legal entity name at filing.
Schedule A lawsuits are a form of mass IP enforcement action where a single plaintiff names dozens or hundreds of anonymous online sellers as defendants, listed on an attached schedule. The N.D. Ill. has become a preferred venue for these actions due to its consistent procedural handling of ex parte TRO and asset freeze requests, which are commonly used to disrupt infringing sales before defendants can be formally served.
No. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice carries no ruling on the validity or enforceability of USD1028527S. The patent remains in force as granted. No court has adjudicated the infringement question on the merits. Third parties relying on the dismissal as evidence of patent weakness would be legally incorrect to do so.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.