Design Patent Showdown: Choose Friendship LLC’s Bracelet Maker IP Battle Ends in Voluntary Dismissal

📄 View Full Report 📥 Export PDF 🔗 Share ⭐ Save

📋 Case Summary

Case NameChoose Friendship LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
Case Number1:23-cv-16571 (N.D. Ill.)
CourtU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
DurationDec 7, 2023 – Mar 6, 2024 90 days
OutcomeVoluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice
Patents at Issue
Accused ProductsFriendship bracelet makers and jewelry maker kits

Introduction

In a swift 90-day litigation cycle, Choose Friendship LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Case No. 1:23-cv-16571) concluded with a voluntary dismissal without prejudice — a strategic outcome that tells a nuanced story about design patent enforcement tactics in the consumer goods space.

Filed on December 7, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, this design patent infringement action centered on four USPTO design patents protecting jewelry-making and friendship bracelet maker products. Plaintiff Choose Friendship LLC, represented by Rosenbaum Famularo & Segall, PC, targeted more than 20 marketplace sellers operating under storefront names on e-commerce platforms — a litigation model increasingly common in consumer product IP enforcement.

For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in the craft, toy, and consumer goods sectors, this case offers critical insights into Schedule A litigation strategy, design patent assertion, and the significance of voluntary dismissal as a tactical tool.

Case Overview

The Parties

⚖️ Plaintiff

A company asserting rights in design patents covering friendship bracelet and jewelry maker products, a significant category in the children’s craft market.

🛡️ Defendants

E-commerce Marketplace Sellers

More than 20 individual sellers and storefronts, including DDAI, Dream Fun, EuTengHao, LANNEY, PREBOX, Qurhafoo, Simfunso, TLEOK, pearoft, BIRANCO, Topdiaos, and others, identified collectively via Schedule A.

Patents at Issue

This case involved four U.S. design patents covering ornamental designs for jewelry-making and bracelet-making products, which protect the ornamental appearance rather than functional technology. These patents are commercially valuable as product aesthetics drive consumer purchasing decisions in the toy and craft category.

🔍

Designing a similar product?

Check if your product design might infringe these or related patents before launch.

Run FTO Check →

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case concluded via voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The dismissal applied to the remaining defendants at the time of closure: BIRANCO, DDAI, PREBOX, Topdiaos, and EuTengHao. All pending motions and deadlines were terminated as moot, and the civil case was formally closed.

Notably, the dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning Choose Friendship LLC retains the right to re-file claims against these defendants in the future if circumstances warrant — a critical strategic distinction.

Key Legal Issues

The case was initiated as a straightforward design patent infringement action. In design patent litigation, the central legal question is whether an ordinary observer — familiar with the prior art — would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design (Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). The absence of defense counsel across all defendants suggests that many resolved their positions early — likely through settlements, store takedowns, or default — leaving only five defendants at the time of voluntary dismissal. The without-prejudice posture strongly implies that these remaining five defendants either reached informal resolutions or that the plaintiff preserved optionality for future enforcement.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case was filed in the Northern District of Illinois, a jurisdiction favored for Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions due to its established procedural familiarity with multi-defendant online infringement cases. Presiding over the matter was Chief Judge LaShonda A. Hunt. The case resolved rapidly — within 90 days of filing — consistent with the lifecycle of many Schedule A cases.

Complaint FiledDecember 7, 2023
Case ClosedMarch 6, 2024
Total Duration90 days

The docket reference to Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal [33] suggests meaningful prior activity, including motions and possibly settlement discussions, before the final termination order was entered.

⚠️

Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis

This case highlights critical IP risks in consumer product design. Choose your next step:

📋 Understand This Case’s Impact

Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.

  • View all 4 related patents in this technology space
  • See which companies are most active in design patents
  • Understand design claim scope
📊 View Patent Landscape
⚠️
High Risk Area

Friendship bracelet maker designs

📋
4 Design Patents

At issue in this case

Proactive FTO

Key for consumer goods

✅ Key Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys & Litigators

Schedule A + design patent combinations remain one of the most efficient e-commerce enforcement vehicles.

Explore enforcement strategies →

Voluntary dismissal without prejudice preserves client rights and is a tactical close to active proceedings, not a concession of weakness.

Understand FRCP 41(a) →

Multi-patent portfolio assertions across related design applications strengthen claim coverage and litigation positioning.

Analyze patent portfolios →
🔒
Unlock IP & R&D Team Recommendations
Get actionable design patent strategy steps for product teams, including FTO timing guidance and filing best practices based on Choose Friendship LLC’s enforcement tactics.
Document Design Evolution Proactive FTO Analysis Monitor Competitor Filings
Explore Full Analysis in PatSnap Eureka

Frequently Asked Questions

Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?

Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.

PatSnap IP Intelligence Team

Patent Research & Competitive Intelligence · PatSnap

This analysis was produced by the PatSnap IP Intelligence Team — a group of patent analysts, IP strategists, and data scientists who work daily with PatSnap’s global patent database of over 2 billion structured data points across patents, litigation records, scientific literature, and regulatory filings.

The team specialises in tracking landmark litigation outcomes, translating complex court rulings into actionable IP strategy, and identifying the competitive intelligence implications for R&D and legal teams. All case analysis is grounded in primary sources: official court records, USPTO filings, and Federal Circuit opinions.

📊 2B+ Patent Data Points 🌍 120+ Countries Covered 🏢 18,000+ Customers Worldwide ⚖️ Global Litigation Database 🔍 Primary Source Verified

References

  1. PACER Case Lookup – Case 1:23-cv-16571
  2. USPTO Patent Search – USD0667468S
  3. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Court Information
  4. Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41
  5. Cornell Legal Information Institute — Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.

⚖️ Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis presented reflects publicly available case information and general legal principles. For specific advice regarding patent litigation, FTO analysis, or IP strategy, please consult a qualified patent attorney.