Dan Zhou v. Schedule A Defendants: Design Patent Settlement After 165 Days
Individual inventor Dan Zhou filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous online marketplace sellers alleging infringement of design patent USD911544S covering a sex toy product. The case resolved in 165 days through a negotiated settlement, with both sides bearing their own costs.
Online marketplace design patent dispute ends in negotiated settlement
On April 23, 2025, plaintiff Dan Zhou filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:25-cv-04436) against a group of anonymous online sellers identified only as ‘The Partnership and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ The suit alleged infringement of design patent USD911544S (application no. US29/741491), which covers the ornamental design of a sex toy product. The case was assigned to Judge Franklin U. Valderrama.
The case terminated on October 5, 2025, after 165 days, when plaintiff voluntarily dismissed defendants AKHMRSTR and BSHMZBD — identified by seller IDs A14RCV54NF27KQ and A319W2XKVN0J9S — following a reported settlement. The dismissal notice states that each party shall bear its own fees, costs, and expenses. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was entered with or without prejudice, a distinction that carries significant legal implications for potential future enforcement.
A 165-day resolution is relatively swift for patent litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, suggesting the parties moved quickly toward settlement rather than engaging in protracted discovery or claim construction proceedings. The use of the ‘Schedule A’ pleading mechanism — common in e-commerce IP enforcement — indicates the action targeted multiple anonymous online sellers, likely operating on major marketplaces. What drove the specific settlement terms, including any financial consideration, remains undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 165 days
165-day resolution — faster than the N.D. Illinois median for patent infringement actions
Voluntarily dismissed: what the settlement resolution means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal following settlement — not a merits ruling
A voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 signals that the plaintiff elected to end the action, typically after reaching a private agreement with the defendants. No court has adjudicated the validity or infringement scope of USD911544S. The public docket records the dismissal but does not disclose whether it was filed with or without prejudice, leaving the enforceability door partially open.
Settlement-driven exitPublic record is silent on the prejudice designation
The critical legal distinction between a dismissal with prejudice (permanently barring refiling against the same defendants on the same claims) and without prejudice (allowing future action) is not resolved on the face of the public docket. The verdict states only that plaintiff ‘voluntarily dismisses the Defendants.’ Third parties and practitioners should not assume either designation applies without obtaining the underlying settlement agreement or a formal court order specifying the terms.
Prejudice status undisclosedSellers exit without admitted liability and bear own costs
The named defendants — marketplace sellers AKHMRSTR and BSHMZBD — secured exit from the litigation without any public finding of infringement or validity. The cost-bearing arrangement (each party pays its own fees) is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a plaintiff-favorable merits outcome. Whether the sellers agreed to cease sales, pay any undisclosed royalty, or modify product designs as part of the settlement remains unknown from the public record.
No infringement findingDesign patent enforcement via Schedule A remains an active e-commerce risk
This case is consistent with a broader pattern of individual inventors and small IP holders using Schedule A complaints to target multiple anonymous online sellers simultaneously. For marketplace sellers in the adult products and consumer goods space, the mechanism enables rapid TRO applications and account freezes. Settlement without merits adjudication leaves the design patent uncontested and potentially enforceable against other sellers carrying similar products.
E-commerce IP enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dan Zhou | Individual | Individual inventor and design patent holder — holder of USD911544SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnership and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified by Schedule A seller IDsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Michael Dewitty | Attorney | Counsel for Dan ZhouSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dewitty And Associates, Chtd. | Law Firm | Representing Dan ZhouSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Franklin U. Valderrama | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice names specific seller IDs and states that settlement was reached, but does not specify whether the dismissal carries prejudice. Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(B), a voluntary dismissal is without prejudice unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise — however, an associated settlement agreement may contain its own res judicata provisions. Practitioners should note that no merits ruling was issued, leaving the validity and enforceability of USD911544S undetermined by this court.
USD911544S — ornamental design for a sex toy product
USD911544S (application no. US29/741491) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a sex toy product. Design patents, unlike utility patents, cover only the non-functional visual characteristics depicted in the patent drawings. Protection is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: would an ordinary purchaser, familiar with prior art designs, mistake the accused product for the patented design? The scope of protection is therefore entirely defined by the visual elements shown in the patent’s figures.
In the consumer goods and adult products sector, design patents are increasingly deployed as enforcement tools against marketplace sellers because they are faster and cheaper to obtain than utility patents and are difficult to challenge on prior art grounds without a formal IPR proceeding. The filing of this suit against anonymous Schedule A defendants suggests the patent holder was actively monitoring e-commerce platforms for ornamentally similar listings. Any seller in this product category operating on major online marketplaces should treat active design patents in this space as a material IP risk.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD911544S?
Any company or individual seller listing products with ornamental similarity to the design claimed in USD911544S on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, or Etsy faces demonstrable enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is willing to file suit and pursue Schedule A injunctive relief. Product teams developing or sourcing consumer goods in this category should conduct a design patent FTO review before listing — not after receiving a cease-and-desist or a marketplace takedown notice.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map the ornamental claim scope of USD911544S against their own product designs, identify prior art that could support an IPR challenge, and surface related design patents filed by the same applicant. Early-stage FTO analysis on design patents is typically faster and less costly than defending a Schedule A infringement action — and significantly cheaper than an emergency motion to unfreeze a suspended marketplace account.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0911544S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois
Browse comparable design patent infringement actions against Schedule A online sellers adjudicated in the Northern District of Illinois involving consumer goods.
What this case signals for the consumer goods design patent landscape
Schedule A design patent enforcement is accelerating in N.D. Illinois — marketplace sellers and IP teams should take note.
Schedule A suits move fast and often settle before any merits ruling
This case resolved in 165 days with no court finding on validity or infringement. Sellers targeted by Schedule A complaints face immediate account freeze risks, creating strong settlement pressure regardless of the underlying merits. IP teams monitoring marketplace enforcement should treat a dismissal as inconclusive — not as vindication of the asserted design.
USD911544S remains unchallenged and enforceable against other sellers
Because no court ruled on the validity of USD911544S, the design patent survives this litigation fully intact. Any seller currently offering ornamentally similar products on major marketplaces faces the same enforcement risk that prompted this settlement. A freedom-to-operate review against this design patent is advisable before or during product listing.
Zhou v Partnership — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed on October 5, 2025, following a reported settlement between plaintiff Dan Zhou and defendants AKHMRSTR and BSHMZBD. Each party bears its own fees and costs. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The patent at issue is USD911544S (application no. US29/741491), a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design of a sex toy product. Design patents protect only the visual, non-functional appearance of a product as depicted in the patent drawings.
A voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41 means the plaintiff elected to end the action, typically after reaching a private settlement. No court ruled on patent validity or infringement. Unless specified as with prejudice, the default under FRCP 41(a)(1)(B) is dismissal without prejudice, though settlement agreements may contain separate res judicata provisions.
Yes. Because no court issued a ruling on the validity or infringement scope of USD911544S, the patent remains in force and is not weakened by this litigation outcome. Other sellers offering ornamentally similar products remain exposed to enforcement action by the patent holder.
A Schedule A complaint lists multiple anonymous defendants identified only by online seller IDs or store names, allowing a patent holder to file a single action against many infringers simultaneously. Courts in the Northern District of Illinois frequently grant ex parte temporary restraining orders in these cases, which can result in immediate marketplace account freezes, creating strong settlement incentives for defendants regardless of the merits.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.