Design Patent Showdown: Choose Friendship LLC’s Bracelet Maker IP Battle Ends in Voluntary Dismissal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Choose Friendship LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| Case Number | 1:23-cv-16571 (N.D. Ill.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Duration | Dec 7, 2023 – Mar 6, 2024 90 days |
| Outcome | Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Friendship 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
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.
- • US D667,468 (App. No. US29/405922)
- • US D676,880 (App. No. US29/419558)
- • US D626,574 (App. No. US29/353612)
- • US D619,150 (App. No. US29/331467)
Designing a similar product?
Check if your product design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
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 Filed | December 7, 2023 |
| Case Closed | March 6, 2024 |
| Total Duration | 90 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
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or aesthetic features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Friendship bracelet maker designs
4 Design Patents
At issue in this case
Proactive FTO
Key for consumer goods
✅ Key Takeaways
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 →Product aesthetics carry legal risk. Design differentiation should be documented as part of pre-commercialization IP clearance.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Source vetting for overseas manufacturers should include IP compliance review to mitigate infringement risk.
Try AI patent drafting →Monitor design patent filings in consumer product categories as early warning indicators of pending enforcement campaigns.
Monitor competitors with PatSnap →Frequently Asked Questions
Four U.S. design patents were asserted: USD0667468S, USD0676880S, USD0626574S, and USD0619150S — all covering ornamental designs for friendship bracelet maker and jewelry maker products.
Plaintiff Choose Friendship LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1), resulting in dismissal without prejudice as to the five remaining defendants. The dismissal preserved the plaintiff’s right to refile.
It reinforces the viability of Schedule A multi-defendant design patent enforcement in the Northern District of Illinois as a cost-efficient strategy for consumer product IP holders facing widespread marketplace infringement.
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.
References
- PACER Case Lookup – Case 1:23-cv-16571
- USPTO Patent Search – USD0667468S
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Court Information
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41
- 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.
📑 Table of Contents
🚀 PatSnap Eureka IP Tools
🔍Novelty Search
Find prior art instantly
Patent Drafting
AI-assisted claim writing
FTO Analysis
Assess infringement risk
Concerned About Your Product?
Don’t wait for litigation. Check your product’s freedom to operate now with AI-powered analysis.
Run FTO for My Product