Chenfan Ji v. Schedule A Defendants: Ring Light Design Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Chenfan Ji filed suit in the Central District of California asserting design patent USD0965668S against anonymous online sellers of a Hagibis-branded 21-inch LED ring light. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss with prejudice in just 78 days — a timeline that typically signals a private settlement reached before full litigation commenced.
Design patent clash over LED ring light ends in swift joint dismissal
On October 28, 2024, plaintiff Chenfan Ji filed suit in the Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cv-09275) asserting infringement of design patent USD0965668S. The patent covers the ornamental design of a 21-inch LED ring light system — specifically the Hagibis-branded product featuring a tripod stand, phone holder, remote controller, and carrying bag operating at 55W and 5600K colour temperature. The defendants were identified collectively as unnamed partnerships or unincorporated associations listed on a confidential Schedule A, a filing convention common in e-commerce enforcement actions targeting online marketplace sellers.
The case closed on January 14, 2025, just 78 days after filing, via a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — Chenfan Ji cannot refile the same claims against the same defendants. The court simultaneously vacated all pending dates, including the March 17, 2025 scheduling conference, and directed the clerk to close the case. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
A joint stipulation resolved before any scheduling conference is consistent with a private settlement, though the public record is silent on financial terms or any licensing arrangement. The with-prejudice designation protects defendants from re-exposure to these specific claims, while the mutual cost-bearing provision suggests a negotiated resolution rather than a concession by either side. The speed of resolution — under three months — is notable even by Schedule A litigation standards, where early settlements are common but not universal.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 78 days
78 days — resolved before scheduling conference, well below district court median
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires both parties’ signatures, making it a consensual exit. ‘With prejudice’ means the dismissal carries the force of a final judgment — the plaintiff cannot refile the same claims against the same defendants in any federal court. This is the standard mechanism used to formalise a settlement while avoiding a formal judgment on the merits.
Final — no refiling permittedChenfan Ji cannot revive these claims against these defendants
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Chenfan Ji permanently forecloses these specific infringement claims against the Schedule A defendants. However, the design patent USD0965668S remains valid and enforceable against third parties not party to this action. The plaintiff retains full rights to assert the patent in future proceedings against different defendants — a common strategy in rolling Schedule A enforcement campaigns.
Patent remains enforceable vs. othersSchedule A sellers gain permanent protection from these claims
The with-prejudice dismissal provides the Schedule A defendants meaningful certainty: Chenfan Ji is contractually and judicially barred from reasserting these specific infringement claims. The cost-neutral outcome — each party bears its own fees — suggests the defendants avoided any damages payment in the public record, though confidential settlement terms may exist. The early resolution avoids the reputational and operational risk of continued litigation.
Claims extinguished — costs borne separatelyDesign patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers: the Schedule A model
This case exemplifies the Schedule A litigation strategy: file against groups of anonymous online sellers, secure a TRO or early leverage, then settle quickly. Design patents on consumer electronics accessories — ring lights, phone holders, tripod systems — are increasingly weaponised in this model. R&D and sourcing teams supplying these product categories should treat any ornamental design element as a potential enforcement vector and run FTO checks before marketplace listings.
Schedule A enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Chenfan Ji | Individual | Individual design patent holder — asserting USD0965668S over LED ring light designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnership or Unincorporated Association Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online sellers identified on Schedule A — alleged infringers of ring light designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Yiu Fai Au | Attorney | Counsel for Chenfan JiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Au Law Office, P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Chenfan JiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint language verbatim, confirming dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The explicit vacatur of the March 17, 2025 scheduling conference confirms no further proceedings were contemplated. The cost-neutral fee provision — ‘each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees’ — is standard in stipulated dismissals and neither implies a defendant victory nor confirms a plaintiff recovery. The with-prejudice designation is the operative term: it forecloses any future action on these specific claims against these specific defendants.
USD0965668S — ornamental design for a 21-inch LED ring light system
USD0965668S is a US design patent (application number US29/736893) protecting the ornamental appearance of a 21-inch LED ring light system. Design patents in the US cover the visual, non-functional characteristics of a product — here, the specific aesthetic configuration of the ring light body, tripod stand, phone holder, and associated accessories. Design patents are granted relatively quickly and carry a 15-year term from grant, making them a cost-efficient IP asset for consumer product designers seeking to protect distinctive product aesthetics against copycat listings.
In the LED lighting accessories market — which encompasses ring lights, key lights, and panel lights sold primarily through e-commerce channels — design patents have become a primary enforcement tool. The Hagibis product at the centre of this dispute is a mid-range content creator accessory, and the visual distinctiveness of its ring-and-tripod configuration is commercially significant in a market crowded with visually similar white-label products. Competitors and sourcing teams operating in the streaming equipment and home office lighting space should treat the ornamental design elements of ring light systems as a live IP risk vector.
Should you run an FTO against USD0965668S before listing a ring light product?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling 21-inch LED ring lights — particularly those with integrated tripod stands, phone holders, and accessory bundles — should assess freedom-to-operate against USD0965668S before entering or expanding in the US market. This is especially critical for Amazon, TikTok Shop, and other marketplace sellers, who are the explicit target of Schedule A enforcement campaigns. Even products with different technical specifications may infringe if their ornamental design is substantially similar to the patent drawings.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can identify design patent families covering LED ring light configurations, map visual similarity between product designs and patent drawings, and surface related pending applications that could extend enforcement risk. Eureka also tracks litigation history associated with specific design patents, helping sourcing and product teams quantify enforcement likelihood before committing to a product line — not after receiving a TRO application.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0965668S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in the Central District of California
These cases share the Schedule A enforcement model, consumer electronics accessories technology area, and Central District of California venue as Case No. 2:24-cv-09275.
What this case signals for the consumer electronics accessories IP landscape
Schedule A design patent filings are rising sharply. This case shows even small-format design patents can generate rapid leverage against e-commerce sellers.
Design patents on accessories carry real enforcement leverage in C.D. Cal.
The Central District of California is a preferred venue for Schedule A design patent enforcement. A 78-day resolution from filing to dismissal with prejudice suggests the defendant sellers faced sufficient early pressure — likely a TRO application or settlement demand — to resolve quickly. Design patents covering ornamental product features are low-cost to obtain and high-impact to assert against marketplace sellers.
Ring light and lighting accessory sellers face design patent exposure
USD0965668S specifically covers the visual design of a 21-inch ring light system. Sellers of competing or white-label ring lights with similar form factors should assess whether their product profiles could be captured by this or related design patents. The Schedule A model means enforcement can sweep broadly across many sellers simultaneously, increasing collective exposure.
Ji v Partnership — key questions answered
Dismissed with prejudice means the court entered a final termination of Chenfan Ji’s infringement claims. The plaintiff cannot refile the same claims against the same defendants in any federal court. The dismissal was entered by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), meaning both parties consented — consistent with a negotiated resolution, though settlement terms are not public.
USD0965668S (application number US29/736893) is a US design patent protecting the ornamental visual design of a 21-inch LED ring light system, specifically the Hagibis-branded product with tripod stand, phone holder, remote controller, and carrying bag. Design patents protect appearance, not function — infringement is assessed by whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product’s design substantially similar to the patent’s drawings.
Schedule A defendants are unnamed parties — typically anonymous online marketplace sellers — identified on a confidential exhibit filed with the complaint. This approach allows plaintiffs to file against large groups of sellers simultaneously without knowing their full identities. Courts in the Central District of California and Northern District of Illinois are common venues for Schedule A design patent enforcement actions.
The public record does not confirm a win or a settlement payment. The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation, with each party bearing its own costs and fees. This structure is consistent with a private settlement — possibly including product takedowns or a confidential payment — but no financial terms were disclosed in court filings.
Seventy-eight days is notably fast, even for Schedule A litigation. Resolution before the first scheduling conference suggests the parties reached agreement very early — possibly after an ex parte TRO application or an initial settlement demand. Schedule A cases frequently settle quickly because defendants face high litigation costs and reputational risk from marketplace account freezes, giving plaintiffs early leverage to negotiate.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.