DiFOLD Inc. v. Schedule A Defendants: Dismissed Without Prejudice After Service Defect
DiFOLD Inc. brought design patent infringement claims against a class of anonymous online sellers in the Southern District of Florida, asserting two design patents covering the DiFOLD product. The case was dismissed without prejudice after just 217 days when the court found the summons failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a), dissolving a previously granted TRO.
Design Patent TRO Dissolved After Defective Summons Derails Schedule A Action
DiFOLD Inc., holder of two U.S. design patents (USD1002386S and USD935892S) covering its foldable consumer product, filed suit on July 19, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against an unnamed class of defendants identified only on Schedule A — a common enforcement tactic targeting anonymous e-commerce sellers suspected of selling infringing products. The plaintiff was represented by Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP.
The court initially granted DiFOLD’s ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order, signalling preliminary credibility for the infringement claim. However, when the matter came before Judge Rodney Smith on the Second Renewed Application for a Preliminary Injunction and asset freeze, the court identified a critical procedural defect: the summons did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a). As a result, the TRO was dissolved, the preliminary injunction was denied, and the entire matter was dismissed without prejudice on February 21, 2025.
The 217-day lifespan of this case ended entirely on procedural grounds, with no ruling on the merits of the design patent infringement claims. The dismissal without prejudice means DiFOLD retains the right to refile, provided service defects are corrected. What remains unknown from the public record is whether DiFOLD intends to refile, whether any defendants were ever actually identified, and whether the asset restraint had any commercial effect before dissolution.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 217 days
217 days — resolved before trial; Schedule A cases often close within 6–12 months
Dismissed without prejudice: what the procedural exit means for both sides
Defective summons under FRCP 4(a) ends the case
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a) sets mandatory requirements for the content of a summons. When a summons fails to comply, defendants are not properly served and the court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. Here, the defective summons meant the TRO — already granted ex parte — could not be sustained, and the entire action was dismissed. This is a procedural, not merits-based, termination.
Procedural dismissalWithout prejudice — but public record is silent on future plans
A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff is not barred from refiling the same claims. DiFOLD could correct the defective summons and initiate a new action against the same or similar defendants. However, this record does not specify whether DiFOLD intends to refile. The distinction matters commercially: without prejudice preserves enforcement options; with prejudice would have extinguished them entirely.
Refile option preservedAnonymous sellers escape on procedure — not on the merits
The Schedule A defendants — anonymous online sellers — avoided injunctive relief and asset freezes due to the service defect, not because the court found no infringement. The previously granted TRO was dissolved. Defendants received no merits-based protection and remain potentially exposed if DiFOLD refiles with a compliant summons. Any assets restrained during the TRO period were also released.
No merits protectionSchedule A enforcement strategy carries procedural execution risk
Schedule A lawsuits against anonymous e-commerce defendants are procedurally demanding. Ex parte TROs and asset freezes depend on flawless compliance with service rules. This case illustrates that even a granted TRO can unravel if foundational procedural requirements — like a compliant summons — are not met. For IP enforcement teams pursuing multi-defendant e-commerce actions, rigorous pre-filing review of service documents is commercially essential.
Execution risk in Schedule A actionsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DiFOLD Inc. | Company | Consumer product design patent holder — holder of USD1002386S and USD935892SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous individuals and entities listed on Schedule A — alleged online infringers of DiFOLD’s design patentsSearch 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 Rodney Smith | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s dismissal order is notable for what it does not decide: there is no finding on infringement, validity, or the commercial scope of DiFOLD’s design patents. The operative defect was the summons’ non-compliance with FRCP 4(a), which prevented proper service and undermined the court’s personal jurisdiction over defendants. The dissolution of the TRO and denial of the preliminary injunction followed as necessary consequences — not independent merits determinations. For both parties, the public record is substantively neutral on patent strength.
USD1002386S & USD935892S — DiFOLD foldable product industrial design rights
USD1002386S (application US29/810610) and USD935892S (application US29/712365) are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of the DiFOLD product — a foldable consumer device. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of a functional article, not its underlying mechanism. The two patents together suggest a multi-layer design protection strategy, likely covering different iterations or configurations of the DiFOLD form factor.
For competitors and product teams operating in the foldable consumer product space — including accessories, organizers, or portable devices with fold-flat or origami-style form factors — these design patents represent active enforcement assets. The fact that DiFOLD pursued ex parte TRO relief and asset freezes against anonymous online sellers signals an aggressive enforcement posture. Neither patent was challenged on its merits in this action, meaning their validity and scope remain untested by the courts.
Should you run an FTO against USD1002386S and USD935892S?
Any product team designing or commercialising foldable consumer goods — particularly those sold through e-commerce channels — should assess freedom-to-operate against DiFOLD’s two design patents. Because design patents protect ornamental appearance, even unintentional similarity in product silhouette, fold configuration, or surface features can trigger infringement risk. The Schedule A enforcement strategy signals that DiFOLD actively monitors online marketplaces for similar products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD1002386S and USD935892S against your product design, identify prior art that may constrain DiFOLD’s enforceable scope, and flag related design patent families that may not yet be in litigation. R&D teams can use Eureka to benchmark their form factor against the DiFOLD design envelope before product launch or marketplace listing.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1002386S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Infringement Cases — S.D. Florida
Cases involving design patent enforcement against Schedule A anonymous defendants in the Southern District of Florida, particularly in consumer product categories.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement in e-commerce
Schedule A design patent actions are powerful but procedurally fragile. This case shows how a single compliance gap can dissolve even a granted TRO.
FRCP 4(a) compliance is a threshold requirement — not a technicality
Courts will not excuse defective summons even when ex parte relief has already been granted. Enforcement counsel pursuing Schedule A actions should audit summons documents before filing, not after. A defective summons can collapse an entire enforcement campaign regardless of the strength of the underlying patent claims.
Design patents remain viable tools against anonymous online sellers
DiFOLD’s design patents — USD1002386S and USD935892S — were never challenged on the merits in this action. The dismissal without prejudice leaves the patents fully enforceable. Rights holders in the consumer product space should treat this case as a procedural lesson, not a signal of design patent weakness.
DiFOLD v Individuals — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice because the summons did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a), meaning defendants were not properly served. Without valid service, the court could not maintain jurisdiction, and the previously granted TRO was dissolved. No ruling was made on the merits of the design patent infringement claims.
DiFOLD asserted two U.S. design patents: USD1002386S (application US29/810610) and USD935892S (application US29/712365). Both patents relate to the ornamental design of the DiFOLD product. Neither patent was adjudicated on its merits in this action.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling. DiFOLD may initiate a new action against the same or similar Schedule A defendants provided the procedural defects — specifically FRCP 4(a) summons compliance — are corrected. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable unless separately challenged.
The court initially granted DiFOLD’s ex parte application for a TRO. However, on February 21, 2025, Judge Rodney Smith dissolved the TRO after finding that the summons was defective under FRCP 4(a). The preliminary injunction application was denied and all pending motions were denied as moot. Any asset restraints in place under the TRO were also released.
Schedule A lawsuits name unknown defendants identified only by reference to an attached schedule, commonly used to pursue large numbers of anonymous online sellers suspected of IP infringement on platforms like Amazon or eBay. DiFOLD’s use of this strategy is consistent with design patent holders seeking broad ex parte relief against distributed infringers before defendants can transfer assets or take down infringing listings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.