Difold Inc. v. Schedule A Defendants: Design Patent Dispute Ends in 36 Days
Difold Inc., holder of two design patents covering its DiFOLD folding bottle products, filed suit against anonymous online sellers in the Southern District of Florida. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in just 36 days — a timeline consistent with early resolution or tactical repositioning rather than full merits adjudication.
Rapid voluntary dismissal in a Florida design patent sweep action
On February 4, 2025, Difold Inc. filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 1:25-cv-20514), presided over by Judge Roy K. Altman. The plaintiff asserted two design patents — USD1002386S (application no. US29/810610) and USD935892S (application no. US29/712365) — covering the distinctive visual design of DiFOLD folding bottle products. The defendants were named collectively as anonymous individuals and entities identified on Schedule A, a common enforcement mechanism against suspected online marketplace sellers.
The case closed on March 12, 2025 — just 36 days after filing — when Difold invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to voluntarily dismiss the Schedule A defendant without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff retains the right to refile claims against the same party in the future, and no merits determination was reached. The public record does not disclose whether a private settlement, licensing arrangement, or other agreement was reached between the parties prior to dismissal.
A 36-day lifespan is notably short even by the standards of Schedule A enforcement actions, which often resolve quickly after TRO and asset-freeze proceedings. The voluntary dismissal at such an early stage may suggest that the targeted defendant complied with Difold’s demands, reached a confidential resolution, or was otherwise removed from the enforcement campaign. What remains unknown from the public record is whether additional Schedule A defendants remain subject to separate or ongoing proceedings, and whether any injunctive relief was obtained prior to dismissal.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 36 days
36 days — well below the median district court patent case duration of 2+ years
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit before answer
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant files an answer or motion for summary judgment. This is the most procedurally simple form of dismissal — it requires no judicial approval and is effective upon filing. It does not constitute a ruling on the merits of the infringement claims.
No merits adjudicationPublic record is silent on whether this reflects a settlement
A dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims against the same defendant in the future. A dismissal with prejudice would bar refiling permanently. The verdict text here specifies ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Difold retains enforcement optionality. However, the public record does not confirm whether a private settlement or licensing agreement accompanied the dismissal — that distinction is commercially significant but undisclosed.
Refiling right preservedDefendant exits without admission — but exposure may persist
The Schedule A defendant faces no court-imposed judgment, injunction, or damages award from this action. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, Difold could refile if the defendant resumes or continues the alleged infringing activity. Anonymous Schedule A defendants who have not reached a formal settlement should treat this dismissal cautiously rather than as full resolution of their IP exposure.
No permanent bar on refilingSchedule A actions as a rapid-enforcement tool for design patents
This case is consistent with a broader enforcement pattern in which design patent holders use Schedule A complaints in the Southern District of Florida to obtain TROs and asset freezes against online marketplace sellers, then resolve cases individually through compliance or negotiated exit. The 36-day duration suggests this mechanism functioned as intended — applying commercial pressure quickly without requiring full litigation. R&D teams and product sellers operating in consumer goods should monitor DiFOLD design patent family exposure.
Design patent sweep tacticFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Difold Inc. | Company | Consumer product design IP holder — owner of USD1002386S and USD935892S covering DiFOLD folding bottlesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online sellers identified on Schedule A — a common enforcement structure against marketplace infringersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Leigh Benjamin Salomon | Attorney | Counsel for Difold Inc.Search 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 Roy K. Altman | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice cites Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming this was a unilateral plaintiff exit filed before the defendant served an answer — the procedurally earliest possible exit point. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it ensures no claim preclusion attaches, and Difold retains full enforcement rights against this defendant going forward. The phrasing does not indicate any concession by either party, and no court order was required to effectuate the dismissal.
USD1002386S & USD935892S — DiFOLD folding bottle ornamental design patents
USD1002386S (application US29/810610) and USD935892S (application US29/712365) are U.S. design patents, meaning they protect the ornamental or aesthetic appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its functional attributes. Design patents have a term of 15 years from grant and are infringed when an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art, would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design. The two patents cover distinct visual iterations of Difold’s collapsible folding bottle product line.
For consumer product companies operating in the reusable drinkware and collapsible bottle segment, these patents represent meaningful IP barriers. The existence of two design patent generations suggests Difold has been building a layered design patent family over time, which complicates design-around strategies — a change sufficient to avoid one patent may still fall within the other. Online marketplace sellers, importers, and private-label manufacturers of folding bottle products face the highest direct exposure and should prioritise FTO review against both patents.
Should you run an FTO against USD1002386S and USD935892S?
Any company designing, importing, or selling collapsible or folding bottle products — particularly those distributed through online marketplaces such as Amazon — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against Difold’s design patent portfolio. This case confirms Difold is actively enforcing both patents. The Schedule A mechanism means enforcement can be initiated quickly, with asset-freeze motions filed before defendants are even notified.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD1002386S and USD935892S against your product designs, identify prior art that may narrow enforceability, and flag related design patent applications in the Difold portfolio. For product teams preparing to launch competing folding bottle SKUs, an Eureka FTO workflow can surface design-around opportunities and flag jurisdictions where enforcement risk is highest — before your product goes to market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1002386S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A enforcement cases in S.D. Florida
Cases below involve design patent infringement actions against Schedule A defendants filed in the Southern District of Florida, covering consumer product ornamental designs.
What this case signals for the consumer product design IP landscape
Difold’s rapid Schedule A action illustrates how design patent holders are using Florida federal courts to enforce aesthetic IP against online sellers at speed.
Southern District of Florida remains a favoured venue for Schedule A design patent sweeps
Difold’s choice of the S.D. Florida reflects an established enforcement playbook: file against anonymous Schedule A defendants, pursue emergency TRO and asset freeze, then resolve cases individually. The 36-day close is consistent with early compliance or negotiated exit — not a merits defeat. Companies selling folding or collapsible consumer bottle products on online marketplaces should audit their exposure to Difold’s design patent portfolio.
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice preserves Difold’s enforcement leverage
Difold retains the right to refile against this defendant, which structurally disadvantages any party that has not reached a formal, documented resolution. For sellers who believe the case was simply dropped, this is a commercially dangerous assumption. The design patents — USD1002386S and USD935892S — remain fully in force and can be reasserted against the same or new defendants at any time.
Difold v Individuals — key questions answered
Difold Inc. filed a design patent infringement suit in the Southern District of Florida on February 4, 2025, asserting USD1002386S and USD935892S against anonymous Schedule A defendants. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Difold on March 12, 2025 — 36 days after filing — with no merits ruling issued.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means Difold retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against the same defendant at a future date. No claim preclusion applies, the design patents remain in force, and the dismissed defendant has no court-imposed immunity from future enforcement action by Difold.
Difold asserted two design patents: USD1002386S (application number US29/810610) and USD935892S (application number US29/712365). Both protect the ornamental appearance of DiFOLD folding bottle products. Design patents cover aesthetic design rather than functional features and have a 15-year term from grant.
The S.D. Florida is frequently used for Schedule A enforcement actions because its courts have demonstrated willingness to grant ex parte TROs and asset freeze orders against anonymous online marketplace defendants. This allows plaintiffs to restrain infringing sales and freeze revenue before defendants are formally notified, creating strong commercial leverage for quick resolution.
The 36-day duration is consistent with early resolution through compliance or private settlement, but the public record does not confirm this. The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without referencing any settlement. It is also possible the targeted defendant was removed from the Schedule A list for other reasons. The confidential nature of any agreement, if one exists, means the public record is silent on the underlying commercial terms.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.