Dongguan Benyuan v. Zhiguang Zhang: Dancing Cactus Design Patent Dismissed in 77 Days
Dongguan Benyuan Food Co., Ltd. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of design patent USD0995660S through the sale of dancing cactus toys under Amazon ASINs B09PDPYC2T and B09PDS2GLX. The case closed just 77 days after filing when plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Design patent skirmish over viral dancing cactus toys ends swiftly
On 11 September 2024, Dongguan Benyuan Food Co., Ltd., a Chinese consumer-goods manufacturer, filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against individual defendant Zhiguang Zhang. The complaint centred on U.S. design patent USD0995660S (application no. 29/794514), which covers the ornamental appearance of a dancing cactus toy — a product category that has seen intense e-commerce competition on Amazon. The accused products were identified by Amazon ASINs B09PDPYC2T and B09PDS2GLX.
The case closed on 27 November 2024 when plaintiff’s counsel at Avek IP LLC filed a voluntary dismissal notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This rule permits a plaintiff to dismiss as of right — without a court order — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The public docket does not record any defendant representation, suggesting Zhang had not yet formally appeared. Critically, the dismissal notice does not specify whether it is with or without prejudice, meaning the precise legal effect on any future re-filing cannot be determined from the public record alone.
A 77-day lifespan is notably short and suggests the dispute was resolved — or abandoned — before substantive litigation began. Rapid voluntary dismissals in Amazon seller design patent cases frequently reflect pre-suit settlement, a takedown already achieved through Amazon’s IP complaint system, or a strategic reassessment after filing. The absence of defendant counsel and the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) mechanism — which does not require defendant consent — is consistent with a plaintiff acting unilaterally. What prompted the dismissal, and whether any commercial agreement was reached, remains undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 77 days
77 days — well below the multi-year median for N.D. Illinois design patent cases
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The filing of the notice itself closes the case — no judicial approval is needed. Because no defendant representation appears in the record here, Dongguan Benyuan could invoke this rule unilaterally. The mechanism is procedurally clean but leaves the with/without prejudice question to be inferred from context or any side agreement.
No court order requiredWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims; ‘without prejudice’ preserves that right. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is presumed without prejudice unless the notice expressly states otherwise — but N.D. Illinois applies similar logic. The dismissal notice in this case does not specify either. Parties and counsel tracking this dispute should not assume re-filing is barred, nor that it is necessarily available on the same facts without further investigation.
Prejudice status unconfirmedZhang exits without a merits ruling — but exposure may persist
Zhiguang Zhang faces no court judgment and no finding of infringement. If the dismissal is without prejudice, Dongguan Benyuan retains the option to re-file, meaning Zhang’s legal exposure to USD0995660S is not necessarily extinguished. If a private settlement was reached — which the record does not confirm — Zhang may have agreed to de-list the accused ASINs or pay a licensing fee. In the absence of a merits ruling, Zhang has no estoppel protection against a future infringement claim on the same patent.
No merits judgment enteredAmazon design patent enforcement: speed and leverage over merits
This case is consistent with a broader enforcement pattern in which design patent holders file suit in U.S. federal courts against Amazon marketplace sellers to achieve rapid commercial outcomes — delisting, settlement, or deterrence — rather than full merits adjudication. The 77-day lifecycle and absence of defendant counsel suggests the filing itself, combined with potential parallel Amazon IP complaints, created sufficient commercial pressure. USD0995660S remains a live, enforceable asset that could anchor future enforcement actions against other sellers in this product category.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dongguan Benyuan Food Co., LTD | Company | Consumer goods manufacturer — holder of design patent USD0995660S for dancing cactus toysSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Zhiguang Zhang | Individual | Individual Amazon seller Zhiguang Zhang, accused of selling infringing dancing cactus toy ASINsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Allen Justin Poplin | Attorney | Counsel for Dongguan Benyuan Food Co., LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wangxue Deng | Attorney | Counsel for Dongguan Benyuan Food Co., LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Avek IP LLC | Law Firm | Representing Dongguan Benyuan Food Co., LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Matthew F. Kennelly | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and states that plaintiff ‘voluntarily dismisses any and all claims in this action.’ This language is facially comprehensive — covering all causes of action — but says nothing about prejudice or any settlement terms. Because no answer or dispositive motion was served, no defendant consent was required. The court entered no substantive ruling, leaving USD0995660S unchallenged on the merits. The phrasing gives plaintiff maximum procedural flexibility while revealing nothing about the commercial outcome.
USD0995660S — Ornamental design for a dancing cactus toy
USD0995660S is a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a dancing cactus toy, filed under application number 29/794514. U.S. design patents protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of a product and carry a term of 15 years from grant. The ‘USD’ prefix signals a design — not utility — patent, meaning infringement turns on whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product substantially similar in appearance to the patented design, not on functional feature-by-feature comparison.
Dancing cactus toys emerged as a high-volume, low-cost novelty category on Amazon and similar e-commerce platforms, attracting numerous competing Chinese manufacturers. For Dongguan Benyuan, USD0995660S represents a design differentiation asset in a crowded marketplace where visual distinction can determine search ranking and consumer preference. Enforcement of design patents in this category is commercially rational even at low per-unit margins when the accused seller is displacing sales at volume. Competitors entering this product space should assess whether their toy’s silhouette, proportions, and decorative elements fall within the scope of this design patent’s claims.
Should your dancing cactus toy SKU be cleared against USD0995660S?
Any brand, Amazon seller, or OEM manufacturer offering dancing cactus novelty toys — or visually similar animated plant toys — in the U.S. market should assess freedom to operate against USD0995660S. Design patent infringement does not require copying intent; if an ordinary observer could mistake your product’s appearance for the patented design, infringement risk is real. The enforcement action against Zhang’s ASINs demonstrates that Dongguan Benyuan is willing to litigate, making proactive FTO analysis a commercially sound step before product launch or restocking.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim scope of USD0995660S against your product’s design drawings, identify prior art that may narrow the patent’s effective coverage, and surface related design patent families that could represent additional risk. For Amazon sellers, Eureka also helps monitor new design patent filings in the novelty toy category — giving IP and sourcing teams early warning before a competitor files suit.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0995660S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar dancing cactus toy design patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving design patent enforcement against Amazon sellers of novelty toys in N.D. Illinois and other U.S. district courts with comparable fact patterns.
What this case signals for the novelty toy design patent landscape
Short-lived Amazon seller suits like this one reveal a litigation strategy built on speed and leverage, not courtroom adjudication.
Design patent filings against Amazon sellers are enforcement tools, not trials
Dongguan Benyuan’s 77-day case lifecycle is consistent with a ‘file-and-resolve’ enforcement model common in consumer novelty goods. The suit’s primary effect may have been to trigger Amazon’s IP complaint process or pressure a quick commercial resolution. IP teams monitoring this sector should track filing patterns, not just verdicts.
USD0995660S remains live — other dancing cactus sellers are not protected
The voluntary dismissal creates no precedent and no invalidity finding. Any Amazon seller carrying similar dancing cactus toy SKUs should treat USD0995660S as an active enforcement risk. A freedom-to-operate analysis against the ornamental design claims in this patent is advisable before launching competing products.
Dongguan v Zhiguang — key questions answered
Dongguan Benyuan Food Co., Ltd. filed a design patent infringement suit against Zhiguang Zhang in the Northern District of Illinois on 11 September 2024. The complaint alleged infringement of USD0995660S through the sale of dancing cactus toys on Amazon. The case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on 27 November 2024 — 77 days after filing — under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with no merits ruling issued.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant has served an answer or summary judgment motion. The dismissal is effective upon filing the notice. In this case, no defendant representation appeared in the record, so plaintiff could dismiss unilaterally. The notice does not specify with or without prejudice, leaving the door open — or closed — to re-filing, depending on any private agreement between the parties.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal produced no invalidity finding, no unenforceability ruling, and no claim construction. USD0995660S remains a live, enforceable U.S. design patent. Sellers of competing dancing cactus toys or visually similar animated plant novelty products in the U.S. market remain potentially exposed to infringement claims under this patent.
The complaint identified two Amazon ASINs as the accused products: B09PDPYC2T and B09PDS2GLX. Both are described as dancing cactus toys. The case did not proceed to a merits determination, so no court has ruled on whether these specific ASINs actually infringe the patented design.
Potentially. Because the dismissal notice is silent on prejudice, and Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals are generally without prejudice absent express statement to the contrary, Dongguan Benyuan may retain the ability to re-file against Zhang or to bring new actions against other sellers of similar products. However, any private settlement agreement — which the public record does not disclose — could restrict that right contractually.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.