Chengdu Shangmiao v. Shenzhen Smart Pet Technology: Bark Collar Patent Case Dismissed in 57 Days
Chengdu Shangmiao Leixing Enterprise Management filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against Shenzhen Smart Pet Technology, asserting US11039601B1 over an Amazon-listed dog bark collar (ASIN: B0BKZDCH5Q). The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice just 57 days after filing — one of the faster resolutions seen in consumer electronics patent disputes.
Swift exit: bark collar patent case closed in under two months
On December 6, 2023, Chengdu Shangmiao Leixing Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Shenzhen Smart Pet Technology Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-16533. The dispute centred on US11039601B1, a granted U.S. patent relating to dog bark collar technology, and specifically targeted the defendant’s product listed on Amazon under ASIN B0BKZDCH5Q. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Virginia M. Kendall.
The case was terminated on February 1, 2024, just 57 days after filing. Plaintiff’s counsel at Glacier Law LLP filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing Shenzhen Smart Pet Technology without prejudice. This procedural mechanism — available before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment — allowed the plaintiff to exit the litigation unilaterally, without court approval and without any adjudication on the merits.
A 57-day lifespan is notably brief, suggesting the parties may have reached a private accommodation — such as a licensing arrangement, a marketplace takedown, or a settlement — though no such terms appear in the public record. The without-prejudice dismissal preserves Chengdu Shangmiao’s full ability to refile, which itself may function as a continuing commercial lever. What drove the swift resolution remains unknown from public filings alone.
Filing to resolution in 57 days
57 days — resolved well below the median lifespan for patent infringement cases in N.D. Illinois
What the voluntary dismissal without prejudice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral dismissal before defendant responds
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss its own action by filing a notice — without court approval — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a summary judgment motion. This is the earliest and cleanest exit available in federal litigation. No hearing, no judicial ruling on the merits, and no findings of validity or infringement attached to the dismissal.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice vs. with prejudice — what the public record says
This case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Chengdu Shangmiao retains the right to refile the same claims against Shenzhen Smart Pet Technology in future. A with-prejudice dismissal would have permanently extinguished those claims. The filing is explicit on this point. However, the public record is silent on whether any private agreement — such as a licence, settlement payment, or marketplace action — underpins the dismissal. The absence of a with-prejudice filing does not confirm or exclude a commercial resolution.
Refiling right preservedUS11039601B1 remains active and unimpaired by this dismissal
Because the case was dismissed before any substantive ruling, US11039601B1 exits this litigation with its validity entirely intact. No invalidity finding, no claim construction order, and no infringement determination was issued. The patent is available for reassertion against Shenzhen Smart Pet or against third parties. Competitors selling similar bark collar products on Amazon or other platforms should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk.
Patent validity unaffectedAmazon ASIN-targeted litigation: a recognisable enforcement pattern
Targeting a specific Amazon ASIN in a complaint is consistent with a China-origin IP enforcement strategy that uses U.S. patent suits to pressure marketplace sellers — often to compel takedowns, licences, or competitor exits. The rapid dismissal without prejudice, combined with no public settlement terms, is consistent with a private resolution achieved shortly after service of process. This pattern appears frequently in consumer goods and pet product IP disputes in N.D. Illinois.
Amazon enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Chengdu Shangmiao Leixing Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese IP management company — holder of US11039601B1, dog bark collar patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Shenzhen Smart Pet Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Shenzhen-based consumer pet technology manufacturer and Amazon marketplace sellerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wei Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Chengdu Shangmiao Leixing Enterprise Management Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Virginia M. Kendall | Chief Judge | Illinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) verbatim, indicating it was filed before Shenzhen Smart Pet served any responsive pleading. The without-prejudice designation is explicit and unambiguous. No terms of resolution are attached to this filing, meaning the public record does not confirm whether a settlement, licence, or marketplace takedown agreement was reached. The patent asserted — US11039601B1 — emerges from this proceeding with no court findings on its validity or scope, leaving it fully available for future enforcement.
US11039601B1 — Dog Bark Collar Device Patent
US11039601B1 is a granted U.S. patent covering technology embodied in a dog bark collar — a wearable animal training device designed to detect and respond to canine vocalisation. The application number US17/189274 indicates filing in the post-2020 period, suggesting this is a relatively recent grant. The patent is held by Chengdu Shangmiao Leixing Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., a Chinese IP management company, and was the sole patent asserted in this litigation. The technical domain sits at the intersection of consumer electronics, animal behaviour technology, and wearable sensor systems.
In the competitive context of Amazon’s pet electronics category, bark collar technology has attracted multiple vendors — many China-based — competing on price and features. A granted U.S. patent in this space, held by an IP management entity with apparent willingness to litigate in U.S. federal court, represents a meaningful enforcement lever against marketplace competitors. The fact that this patent was weaponised within its likely early commercial life suggests active portfolio monetisation rather than defensive accumulation.
Should your team run an FTO against US11039601B1?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling bark collar devices — or functionally similar animal training wearables — for the U.S. market should assess exposure to US11039601B1. This is particularly relevant for sellers listing on Amazon.com, where ASIN-level targeting has already been demonstrated. The risk is not limited to direct competitors of Shenzhen Smart Pet: the without-prejudice dismissal means the patent holder retains full enforcement rights and may pursue other sellers in the same category.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US11039601B1 against your product specifications and identify freedom-to-operate gaps before they become litigation exposure. Claim monitoring alerts can also flag any continuation or divisional applications that could extend the patent family’s reach. For teams managing Amazon listings in the pet tech category, proactive FTO analysis is a commercially proportionate step given the enforcement activity already on record.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11039601B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases in dog bark collar and pet wearable technology
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the pet tech IP enforcement landscape
A 57-day dismissal without prejudice in a targeted Amazon ASIN case reveals a recognisable — and commercially sophisticated — enforcement playbook.
Without-prejudice exits preserve optionality — monitor for refiling activity
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not a concession. Chengdu Shangmiao retains full rights to refile against Shenzhen Smart Pet or to assert US11039601B1 against other bark collar sellers. Any company currently selling similar devices on U.S. marketplaces should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and monitor its litigation history accordingly.
N.D. Illinois is a favoured venue for China-origin Amazon marketplace patent suits
The Northern District of Illinois has become a notable forum for patent actions targeting Amazon sellers, particularly in consumer goods. Filing in this district — and naming a specific ASIN — is a deliberate strategic choice. Companies with Amazon U.S. listings in the pet electronics category should assess their exposure to patents held by Chinese IP management entities, which increasingly use U.S. litigation infrastructure to enforce registered IP.
Chengdu v Shenzhen — key questions answered
Chengdu Shangmiao voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on February 1, 2024, 57 days after filing. The plaintiff asserted US11039601B1 against a dog bark collar listed on Amazon (ASIN B0BKZDCH5Q). No merits ruling was issued. The dismissal was filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before any responsive pleading was served by the defendant.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but no findings were made on patent validity or infringement. Chengdu Shangmiao retains full rights to refile the same claims against Shenzhen Smart Pet Technology or to assert US11039601B1 against other parties. The patent exits the litigation with its enforceability entirely intact.
US11039601B1 is a granted U.S. patent held by Chengdu Shangmiao Leixing Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., filed under application number US17/189274. It relates to dog bark collar technology — a wearable animal training device category. It was the sole patent asserted in Case No. 1:23-cv-16533 and remains valid and enforceable following the case’s dismissal.
The Northern District of Illinois, based in Chicago, is a commonly selected venue for patent infringement cases involving Amazon marketplace sellers and China-origin IP holders. It has developed familiarity with e-commerce patent disputes and offers procedural infrastructure suited to fast-moving commercial cases. The plaintiff’s counsel, Glacier Law LLP, filed here — a choice consistent with established practice in this enforcement pattern.
The speed of resolution — 57 days — is consistent with parties reaching a private accommodation such as a licensing agreement, a marketplace takedown, or a settlement payment, though no such terms appear in the public record. The without-prejudice dismissal does not confirm or exclude a commercial resolution. It is also possible the plaintiff assessed the litigation economics and chose to withdraw before incurring further costs.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.