Bounce Curl vs. Schedule A Defendants: Design Patent Dismissed in Hair Styling Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Bounce Curl, LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| Case Number | 1:25-cv-14359 |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Duration | Nov 2025 – Jan 2026 53 days |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win — Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice |
| Patent at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Hairbrushes and combs, hair accessories, hair drying products, hair styling products, hair vitamins, oils, perfumes, and shampoos and conditioners |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A hair care brand with a recognized presence in the curly hair product market, offering a range of styling and conditioning products and holding IP in distinctive product designs.
🛡️ Defendant
A common litigation construct representing anonymous e-commerce sellers on online marketplaces, typically identified via sealed schedules.
The Patent at Issue
This case involved **U.S. Design Patent USD1028527S** (Application No. 29/880,941). Design patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and protect ornamental appearance rather than functional technology. The accused product categories spanned a broad consumer product range including hairbrushes and combs, hair accessories, hair drying products, hair styling products, hair vitamins, oils, perfumes, and shampoos and conditioners.
- • US D1028527S — Ornamental design for a hair styling tool.
Designing a similar hair care product?
Check if your product design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case was terminated pursuant to **Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)**, which permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Critically, this dismissal was entered **without prejudice** as to the defendant **AniberhgZhen**, meaning Bounce Curl retains the right to re-file claims against this party in the future. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was entered in connection with this dismissal.
Key Legal Issues
The case was initiated as an infringement action under design patent law. Design patent infringement is assessed under the ordinary observer test established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008), which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. Because no substantive judicial rulings on infringement or validity were issued before dismissal, there is no claim construction record or merits analysis to evaluate from this proceeding.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in hair care product design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in hair care design patents
- Understand claim construction patterns
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Hair styling/care product designs
1 Related Patent
In this specific design space
Design-Around Options
Available for most claims
✅ Key Takeaways
Schedule A design patent actions in N.D. Illinois continue to be a dominant enforcement vehicle for consumer brand protection.
Search related case law →Rule 41(a)(1) without-prejudice dismissals are a flexible tool for managing multi-defendant marketplace litigation.
Explore precedents →USD design patents offer lower barriers to enforcement than utility patents in consumer product disputes.
Learn more about design patents →No merits ruling means no adverse claim construction record — plaintiffs preserve full enforcement posture.
Analyze litigation strategies →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Design Patent USD1028527S (Application No. 29/880,941), covering ornamental designs in the hair styling and personal care product category.
Plaintiff Bounce Curl LLC filed a voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1) as to defendant AniberhgZhen. A without-prejudice dismissal preserves the plaintiff’s right to re-file claims, and the specific basis — whether settlement, license, or strategic choice — was not disclosed in the public case record.
It reinforces the viability of the Schedule A enforcement model for design patent holders in the personal care sector and signals continued active enforcement by established hair care brands against marketplace sellers.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER Case Locator — Case 1:25-cv-14359
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Design Patent Resources
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Ordinary Observer Test
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.