DCSTAR v. Schedule A Defendants: Voluntary Dismissal After 120 Days
DCSTAR, Inc. filed an infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois asserting US11478575B1, covering a removal device for obstructions in the respiratory tract, against a class of unnamed Schedule A defendants. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 120 days after filing, before any defendant had answered or filed a motion for summary judgment.
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal in a Schedule A enforcement action
On June 30, 2025, DCSTAR, Inc. filed Case No. 1:25-cv-07362 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge LaShonda A. Hunt. The action asserted infringement of US11478575B1, a patent covering a removal device designed to clear obstructions from the respiratory tract, along with an associated connector. The defendants were identified collectively as ‘The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A,’ a designation commonly used in e-commerce enforcement actions targeting multiple online sellers simultaneously.
On October 28, 2025 — 120 days after filing — DCSTAR filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), explicitly dismissing the action without prejudice as to the remaining defendant. The notice confirmed that no defendant had yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment prior to the dismissal, satisfying the procedural threshold for a unilateral Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal without court approval. The court had previously directed DCSTAR to file a status report by October 24, 2025, suggesting some judicial pressure on case progress was present.
A 120-day lifecycle resolved entirely before any defendant entered an appearance is consistent with several scenarios common in Schedule A litigation: a private settlement with remaining defendants, an inability to identify or serve defendants, or a strategic decision to refile in a different venue or on revised claims. The public record does not disclose which factor applied here. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, DCSTAR retains the right to refile substantially the same claims against the same or different defendants, making this termination commercially significant rather than fully conclusive.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 120 days
120 days — resolved before first substantive defendant response
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because no defendant here had done either, DCSTAR could file this notice unilaterally. No judicial approval was required, and the dismissal took effect immediately upon filing.
Pre-answer dismissal — no court order neededWithout prejudice: the distinction matters
The notice explicitly states dismissal is ‘without prejudice.’ This means the claims are not extinguished — DCSTAR retains the right to refile the same infringement action. A dismissal ‘with prejudice,’ by contrast, would bar refiling on the same claims. The public record confirms ‘without prejudice,’ so any suggestion that this is a final resolution of DCSTAR’s IP rights against these defendants would be premature.
Refiling rights preservedDefendants exit without a merits ruling
The Schedule A defendants — none of whom filed an appearance — face no adverse judgment and no finding of infringement. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, they cannot treat this case as a final adjudication of non-infringement. The underlying patent US11478575B1 remains in force, and renewed enforcement risk persists for any entity operating in the respiratory device removal space.
No merits adjudication — patent still activeSchedule A tactic: settlement or strategic reset?
Schedule A litigation is frequently used to secure preliminary injunctions and expedited discovery against anonymous e-commerce sellers, with many cases resolving via confidential settlement before any defendant responds. The court’s status report directive suggests the case was not progressing as filed. Whether this reflects a successful off-record resolution or a tactical refile is unknown, but DCSTAR’s IP position against this product category remains live.
Enforcement posture remains openFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DCSTAR, Inc. | Company | Medical device IP holder — asserting US11478575B1 for respiratory tract removal deviceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Unnamed e-commerce partnerships identified collectively on Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Qiushi Chen | Attorney | Counsel for DCSTAR, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Qiushi Chen Solo Practice | Law Firm | Representing DCSTAR, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge LaShonda A. Hunt | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The voluntary dismissal notice expressly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and confirms the dismissal is without prejudice. The procedural basis — no defendant having answered or moved for summary judgment — is explicitly stated, confirming the notice was self-executing and required no judicial order. The court’s prior directive for a status report suggests the case was under scrutiny for lack of progress. No merits finding was made, and US11478575B1 remains unchallenged by this proceeding.
US11478575B1 — Respiratory tract obstruction removal device and connector
US11478575B1 (application number US17/393249) protects a removal device designed to extract obstructions from the respiratory tract, together with an associated connector mechanism. The patent’s B1 designation indicates it issued without any post-grant amendment, suggesting the claims were allowed as filed — typically a signal of a relatively uncrowded prior art landscape at examination. The respiratory tract obstruction removal category encompasses devices used in emergency airway management and similar clinical or consumer safety contexts.
From a competitive intelligence standpoint, a granted utility patent in the respiratory device removal space carries meaningful exclusionary potential against both direct competitors and e-commerce distributors of similar tools. The decision to pursue a Schedule A action — naming multiple unnamed defendants — is consistent with enforcement against online marketplaces selling potentially infringing devices at scale. For manufacturers and distributors in the airway management or emergency medical device categories, US11478575B1 represents an active enforcement risk that persists beyond this dismissal.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11478575B1?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or selling devices for removing obstructions from the respiratory tract — including connectors and associated tools — should treat US11478575B1 as a live freedom-to-operate concern. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case creates no safe harbour. The patent remains in force, and DCSTAR’s demonstrated willingness to file Schedule A actions suggests continued enforcement activity is possible. Product teams launching or modifying respiratory obstruction tools should conduct claim-level FTO analysis before commercialisation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claims of US11478575B1, identify overlapping prior art, and flag related patents in DCSTAR’s portfolio. Eureka’s litigation monitoring tool tracks new Schedule A filings in the Northern District of Illinois, alerting your IP team to renewed enforcement activity in this space before it escalates to injunctive relief.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11478575B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent enforcement cases: respiratory and medical devices
Explore comparable Schedule A infringement actions in the Northern District of Illinois involving medical device and respiratory product patents with similar enforcement patterns.
What this case signals for the medical device IP enforcement landscape
Schedule A patent actions in the Northern District of Illinois carry significant commercial leverage even when they end in voluntary dismissal.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve full enforcement optionality
DCSTAR’s dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without prejudice leaves US11478575B1 fully enforceable. IP teams in the respiratory and medical device space should not treat this termination as a signal that the patent has been abandoned or invalidated — the holder retains all rights to refile.
Schedule A filings create pre-answer leverage regardless of final outcome
The 120-day window before dismissal is consistent with Schedule A tactics designed to obtain emergency relief and identify defendants before any formal response is required. Even a voluntarily dismissed Schedule A case typically signals active IP enforcement intent by the patent holder and may indicate confidential resolutions that never appear on the docket.
DCSTAR v Partnerships — key questions answered
The dismissal is without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning DCSTAR’s patent US11478575B1 remains fully in force and enforceable. No merits finding was made, and DCSTAR retains the right to refile the same claims against the same or different defendants. The patent’s enforceability is entirely unaffected by this procedural termination.
Schedule A defendants are typically unnamed or pseudonymous defendants — often online sellers or e-commerce storefronts — identified collectively in an attachment to the complaint rather than individually. This approach is common in IP enforcement actions targeting multiple marketplace sellers simultaneously, allowing plaintiffs to obtain emergency relief before defendants can be individually served or identified.
Yes. Because the dismissal was explicitly entered without prejudice, DCSTAR may refile substantially the same infringement claims against the same or new defendants. A second voluntary dismissal of the same claims, however, would typically operate as a dismissal with prejudice under the ‘two-dismissal rule’ of Rule 41(a)(1)(B).
US11478575B1 (application US17/393249) covers a removal device for extracting obstructions from the respiratory tract, along with an associated connector. It is relevant to manufacturers, importers, and distributors of emergency airway management tools, anti-choking devices, and similar respiratory safety products sold in consumer or clinical markets.
The Northern District of Illinois — particularly its Chicago division — is a frequently selected venue for Schedule A patent enforcement actions due to its experience handling multi-defendant e-commerce IP cases and its willingness to issue temporary restraining orders and asset-freeze orders against anonymous online sellers. This case is consistent with that established filing pattern.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.