Anjikepeijiajuchang v. Anji Younike Furniture Co., Ltd.
Infringement action filed 5 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 26 Feb 2026, with USD1101441S asserted. Recorded basis of termination: .
Case record
- Patent involved
- USD1101441S
- Application no.
- US29/894169
- Case no.
- 4:26-cv-00015
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Sean D. Jordan
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 5 Jan 2026 – 26 Feb 2026
- Duration
- 52 days
- Basis of termination
- None recorded
- Products & marks
- Chair
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Chair
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 11 Nov 2025
- Earliest priority
- 7 Dec 2022
- Est. expiry
- 11 Nov 2040
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- YANG, TAO
- Prosecution counsel
- Bartholomew Law PC
- Examiner
- BOHANNON, PAUL D
Parties of record
Anjikepeijiajuchang
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Timothy Tiewei Wang.
- Firm
- Ni Wang & Associates PLLC
Anji Younike Furniture Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Timothy Tiewei Wang. | Anjikepeijiajuchang | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Anjikepeijiajuchang dba Cinxzar-US (“Plaintiff”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby voluntarily dismisses this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendant Anji Younike Furniture Co., Ltd. Prior to the filing of this notice, Defendant has yet to file an answer or motion for summary judgment.”
Case 4:26-cv-00015 · E.D. Tex. · closed 26 February 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 4:26-cv-00015?
4:26-cv-00015 is a patent infringement action brought by Anjikepeijiajuchang against Anji Younike Furniture Co., Ltd., filed on 5 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 26 February 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 4:26-cv-00015?
USD1101441S (“Chair”), assigned to ANJI YOUNIKE FURNITURE CO., LTD., currently active. The record also lists Chair.
How was case 4:26-cv-00015 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is not recorded. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Anjikepeijiajuchang dba Cinxzar-US (“Plaintiff”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby voluntarily dismisses this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendant Anji Younike Furniture Co., Ltd. Prior to the filing of this notice, Defendant has yet to file an answer or motion for summary judgment.”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 4:26-cv-00015 take?
52 calendar days, from filing on 5 Jan 2026 to closure on 26 February 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:26-cv-00015?
Chief Judge Sean D. Jordan presided. Timothy Tiewei Wang. is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Anjikepeijiajuchang.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:26-cv-00015 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.