DiFOLD Inc. v. Schedule A Defendants: Collapsible Container Design Patents Dismissed
DiFOLD Inc. asserted two design patents covering collapsible containers against a Schedule A roster of online sellers in Florida’s Southern District. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal without prejudice after 125 days, with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
Design patent enforcer exits early — but keeps the door open
DiFOLD Inc., holder of two design patents covering collapsible containers (USD1002386S and USD0935892S), filed suit on October 24, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against a ‘Schedule A’ roster of unnamed individuals and entities — the standard enforcement vehicle for targeting multiple e-commerce sellers simultaneously. The case was assigned to Judge David S. Leibowitz and handled on the plaintiff side by Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP.
On February 25, 2025 — one day before a scheduled status conference — DiFOLD filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), seeking dismissal without prejudice. The court granted the motion on February 26, 2025, cancelled the pending status conference, denied all outstanding motions as moot, and ordered each party to bear its own legal costs. No defendants had entered appearances or filed answers, satisfying the procedural threshold for unilateral voluntary dismissal.
The 125-day lifespan and pre-answer dismissal suggests the parties may have reached informal resolutions with some or all Schedule A defendants, or that DiFOLD elected to consolidate or refile strategically. Because dismissal was without prejudice, the public record does not reveal whether settlements were reached, and DiFOLD’s design patent rights remain fully intact and enforceable. The absence of any defendant law firm on record is consistent with the Schedule A model, where many defendants default or negotiate quickly.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 125 days
125 days — relatively swift resolution for a multi-defendant Schedule A infringement action
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit right
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because no Schedule A defendant appears to have formally answered here, DiFOLD could dismiss unilaterally. This is a procedural right, not a merits ruling — the court simply closes the docket.
No merits adjudicationDismissal without prejudice: the critical distinction
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims against the same parties in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is a final judgment on the merits — the plaintiff cannot refile. Here, the court’s order explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning DiFOLD’s design patent claims survive and could be reasserted. The public record does not disclose whether private settlements were reached with any Schedule A defendants.
Refile right preservedDiFOLD retains its design patents and enforcement optionality
DiFOLD exits this docket with its two design patents — USD1002386S and USD0935892S — fully intact and unchallenged on the merits. No invalidity ruling, no adverse claim construction, and no damages award was issued. The company retains the ability to refile against any of the Schedule A defendants or new infringers. The cost-bearing order (each party pays own fees) is neutral and does not signal a weakness in DiFOLD’s legal position.
Patents unimpairedSchedule A sellers face continuing design patent exposure
The voluntary dismissal without prejudice provides no legal protection to the Schedule A defendants. They received no declaratory judgment of non-infringement and no invalidity ruling. Any seller who has not reached a private settlement with DiFOLD remains exposed to a future refiling. This is consistent with the Schedule A enforcement model, where the threat of litigation itself — rather than a final judgment — is the primary commercial lever used against e-commerce sellers.
No safe harbour grantedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DiFOLD Inc. | Company | Consumer products design patent holder — asserting USD1002386S and USD0935892SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Schedule A e-commerce sellers alleged to infringe collapsible container designsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicole Fundora | Attorney | Counsel for DiFOLD Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing DiFOLD Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David S. Leibowitz | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order mirrors DiFOLD’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice verbatim, granting dismissal without prejudice and cancelling the pending status conference. Critically, the order contains no merits language — no finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The mutual cost-bearing directive is standard for pre-answer voluntary dismissals and does not imply any concession by either side. The formal record leaves the design patents legally unscathed and the defendants without any declaratory protection.
USD1002386S & USD0935892S — Collapsible Container Ornamental Designs
USD1002386S (application no. US29/810610) and USD0935892S (application no. US29/712365) are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of DiFOLD’s collapsible containers. Design patents cover the visual, non-functional attributes of a product — shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation — rather than utility. In the collapsible container market, where form factors are a primary differentiator among e-commerce competitors, design patent protection can be commercially decisive.
The two design patents together form a layered enforcement portfolio: the earlier-filed USD0935892S (application US29/712365) and the later USD1002386S (application US29/810610) may cover distinct ornamental variations or iterations of the collapsible form, creating overlapping coverage. For competitors in the foldable container, collapsible cup, or portable drinkware space — particularly those selling via Amazon, Etsy, or other online marketplaces — these patents represent a material FTO risk that has not been limited by any court ruling on claim scope.
Should you run an FTO against USD1002386S and USD0935892S?
Any product team designing or sourcing collapsible containers, foldable cups, or similar portable vessel form factors for e-commerce sale should treat these two design patents as live FTO risks. The voluntary dismissal in this case produced no invalidity finding and no claim construction — meaning the ornamental scope of both patents is entirely untested by a court. Sellers on Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or Shopify in this product category are the precise targets of Schedule A enforcement actions.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental claim boundaries of USD1002386S and USD0935892S against your product drawings, flag design-around opportunities, and surface prior art that could support an IPR or ex parte reexamination petition if you need to challenge these patents proactively. Given DiFOLD’s demonstrated willingness to file — and the without-prejudice exit that preserves re-filing rights — early FTO clearance is the lowest-cost risk mitigation available.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1002386S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Cases in Florida Southern District
Explore related collapsible container and consumer product design patent Schedule A enforcement actions filed in Florida’s Southern District Court.
What this case signals for the collapsible container IP landscape
Schedule A design patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers is intensifying — and voluntary dismissals rarely mean the fight is over.
Schedule A tactics signal broad e-commerce enforcement strategy
DiFOLD’s use of the Schedule A complaint format — naming hundreds of unnamed online sellers in a single action — is the dominant enforcement model for consumer product design patents in the Southern District of Florida. A pre-answer voluntary dismissal without prejudice is consistent with private settlements or a strategic refile, not abandonment. Companies selling similar collapsible containers online should treat this as an active threat signal.
Without-prejudice exit preserves full litigation leverage for DiFOLD
Because the dismissal is without prejudice and no defendant obtained a merits ruling, DiFOLD’s design patents remain clean and uncontested on the public record. Competitors or defendants who did not settle cannot rely on this docket as precedent. The lack of a cost sanction against DiFOLD also suggests the court saw no abusive filing — preserving reputational and legal credibility for future actions.
DiFOLD v Individuals — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice. On February 25, 2025, DiFOLD filed a voluntary dismissal notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court granted the motion on February 26, 2025, explicitly ordering the action ‘DISMISSED without prejudice.’ DiFOLD retains the right to refile claims against any Schedule A defendant.
DiFOLD asserted two U.S. design patents: USD1002386S (application US29/810610) and USD0935892S (application US29/712365). Both cover ornamental designs for collapsible containers. No claim construction or invalidity ruling was issued during the case, so the full ornamental scope of both patents remains judicially untested.
A Schedule A complaint names a large number of anonymous defendants — typically e-commerce sellers — in a single filing. Plaintiffs attach a sealed schedule identifying specific sellers. This format is widely used in the Southern District of Florida for design patent enforcement against online marketplace vendors. Defendants often settle quickly or default rather than mounting a formal defense.
DiFOLD Inc. was represented by attorney Nicole Fundora of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP. No defendant law firm appeared on the record, consistent with the Schedule A model where most defendants do not formally enter the litigation before a voluntary dismissal or default.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not bar refiling. DiFOLD’s design patents USD1002386S and USD0935892S remain valid and enforceable. The company can refile against the same Schedule A defendants or new infringers, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. The cost-bearing order (each party pays own fees) does not restrict future enforcement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.