Dongguan Juyuan v. Schedule A Defendants: Folding Wireless Charging Stand Design Patent Dismissed in 17 Days
Dongguan Juyuan Precision Technology filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois asserting USD1019552S over a folding wireless charging stand. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after just 17 days — one of the shortest resolution windows in Schedule A enforcement actions.
A 17-day Schedule A design patent action ends before service is confirmed
On November 1, 2024, Dongguan Juyuan Precision Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese precision hardware manufacturer, filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Jeremy C. Daniel. The action asserted design patent USD1019552S — covering the ornamental appearance of a folding wireless charging stand — against a class of unnamed online marketplace sellers identified collectively as the Partnership and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule A.
Just 17 days after filing, on November 18, 2024, the plaintiff invoked FRCP 4(a)(1)(A)(i) and the Court’s operative order to notify the court of dismissal of all defendants on Schedule A, subsequently filing a voluntary dismissal of the entire action. The basis of termination is recorded as voluntary dismissal. Critically, the public docket does not specify whether the dismissal was entered with or without prejudice — a distinction that carries significant consequences for the plaintiff’s ability to refile against the same defendants.
A 17-day lifecycle is notably short even for Schedule A enforcement campaigns, which are often filed as leverage tools to obtain TROs or asset freezes before settlement. The rapid exit suggests the plaintiff may have achieved off-docket resolution, encountered procedural barriers to service, or reassessed litigation strategy shortly after filing. Without a settlement agreement or court-ordered terms on the record, the precise driver of dismissal remains unknown from publicly available filings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 17 days
17 days from filing to voluntary dismissal — well below the median lifecycle for Schedule A IP actions
Voluntarily dismissed: what the public record does and does not tell us
Voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41 — but the prejudice question is open
The plaintiff cited FRCP 4(a)(1)(A)(i) — a service-of-process timing provision — alongside the court’s own order as the procedural basis for notifying dismissal. A subsequent voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41(a) allows a plaintiff to exit the case unilaterally before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. Whether this dismissal carries prejudice — and thus bars refiling — is not stated on the public docket.
FRCP 41(a) voluntary dismissalWith or without prejudice? The record is silent — and it matters
A dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims against the same defendants, subject to statutes of limitation. A dismissal with prejudice extinguishes those claims permanently. The public record in this case does not specify which applies. Practitioners reviewing this docket should treat the prejudice status as unresolved and conduct independent docket review before advising on re-exposure risk for any named defendant.
Prejudice status unconfirmedExit in 17 days — strategic withdrawal or off-docket resolution?
Dongguan Juyuan secured no injunction, damages award, or recorded settlement on the public docket. However, Schedule A cases frequently involve parallel negotiation with marketplace platforms and individual sellers. The speed of exit is consistent with either a private settlement with key defendants, a successful TRO-and-freeze strategy executed off the main docket, or a decision to abandon this particular filing and refile with a refined defendant list.
No recorded award or settlementSchedule A defendants dismissed — but re-exposure risk remains real
Defendants named on Schedule A obtain no judicial ruling on the merits of infringement. The dismissal provides no estoppel or collateral bar against future enforcement of USD1019552S. If the dismissal was without prejudice, Dongguan Juyuan retains the right to refile identical claims. Online sellers in the folding wireless charging accessories space should treat this case as a signal of active design patent enforcement activity rather than a cleared field.
No merits ruling — re-filing possibleFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dongguan Juyuan Precision Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese precision hardware manufacturer — holder of design patent USD1019552SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnership and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A | Individual | Unnamed online marketplace sellers collectively identified on Schedule A to the complaintSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Michael Dewitty | Attorney | Counsel for Dongguan Juyuan Precision Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dewitty And Associates, Chtd. | Law Firm | Representing Dongguan Juyuan Precision Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeremy C. Daniel | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 4(a)(1)(A)(i) — governing the time allowed for service of process — alongside the court’s operative order, suggesting a procedural service deadline may have prompted the filing. The plaintiff then entered a voluntary dismissal of the full action. Notably, the verdict text does not state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a first voluntary dismissal before answer is presumptively without prejudice unless the notice states otherwise, but practitioners should verify the precise docket language before relying on this default rule.
USD1019552S — Ornamental design for a folding wireless charging stand
USD1019552S is a U.S. design patent, applied for under application number US29/878093, covering the ornamental appearance of a folding wireless charging stand. Design patents protect the visual and aesthetic characteristics of a product rather than its functional operation — meaning competitors may produce functionally identical chargers provided the overall visual impression differs sufficiently from the patented design. The ‘USD’ prefix denotes a U.S. design patent, which carries a standard term of 15 years from grant.
The folding wireless charging stand market is a high-volume, intensely competitive consumer electronics accessories segment dominated by Chinese OEMs selling through Amazon, AliExpress, and similar platforms. Asserting design patent rights in this space via Schedule A complaints allows patent holders to target large numbers of sellers simultaneously. USD1019552S, if actively enforced, could generate significant leverage against sellers of visually similar folding chargers — even absent any functional novelty claims — making design clearance a commercial priority for any company operating in this product category.
Should your team run an FTO against USD1019552S?
Any company designing, importing, or selling folding wireless charging stands in the United States should assess exposure to USD1019552S. This case confirms that the patent holder is willing to pursue U.S. district court enforcement. Because design patent infringement is assessed holistically — under the ordinary observer test — even products that differ in internal mechanism or branding may infringe if the overall ornamental appearance is substantially similar. This risk is particularly acute for private-label sellers and e-commerce merchants sourcing from third-party manufacturers.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and IP teams to map the visual claim scope of USD1019552S, identify prior art that may bear on validity, and surface design-around opportunities by comparing your product’s ornamental features against the patented design. Eureka also tracks the litigation history associated with any patent, so you can assess whether the patent holder has filed similar Schedule A actions and what outcomes those cases produced — giving you a full enforcement risk picture before your next product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1019552S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in consumer electronics accessories
Cases involving Schedule A design patent enforcement over consumer electronics accessories in the Northern District of Illinois, including comparable wireless charging and mobile accessory actions.
What this case signals for the wireless charging accessories IP landscape
Short-lived Schedule A filings are rarely meaningless — they often signal broader enforcement campaigns in consumer electronics accessories.
Design patent enforcement via Schedule A is accelerating in consumer electronics
The Northern District of Illinois remains a preferred venue for Schedule A design patent campaigns targeting e-commerce sellers. Dongguan Juyuan’s rapid filing and exit over USD1019552S is consistent with a wave of similar actions by Chinese OEMs asserting ornamental design rights over accessory form factors. IP teams monitoring this space should track serial Schedule A filers, not just individual case outcomes.
A 17-day dismissal does not mean the patent or enforcement threat is resolved
Voluntary dismissal without a prejudice specification leaves USD1019552S fully enforceable. Sellers dismissed from Schedule A without a written release or covenant not to sue remain exposed. Product teams and in-house counsel should not treat this docket closure as clearance — an FTO analysis against the asserted design patent remains advisable for any company selling folding wireless charging stands.
Dongguan v Partnership — key questions answered
USD1019552S is a U.S. design patent, filed under application number US29/878093, covering the ornamental appearance of a folding wireless charging stand. Dongguan Juyuan Precision Technology Co., Ltd. asserted this patent against unnamed online sellers in case 1:24-cv-11301 in the Northern District of Illinois.
The case was voluntarily dismissed just 17 days after filing. The dismissal notice referenced FRCP 4(a)(1)(A)(i), a service-of-process timing provision, suggesting a deadline issue may have been a factor. The rapid exit is also consistent with off-docket settlement, successful marketplace takedowns, or a strategic decision to refile with a refined defendant list. The specific reason is not stated in the public record.
The public docket records the basis of termination as ‘Voluntary dismissal’ but does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a first voluntary dismissal before answer is generally presumed without prejudice unless expressly stated otherwise, but practitioners should review the precise docket language independently.
A Schedule A case is a patent enforcement action filed against a large group of unnamed defendants — typically online marketplace sellers — who are identified by pseudonym or store name on a schedule attached to the complaint. This procedural device, popular in the Northern District of Illinois, allows plaintiffs to obtain TROs, asset freezes, and marketplace takedowns against dozens or hundreds of sellers in a single action before defendants are individually served.
No. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not affect the validity or enforceability of USD1019552S. The patent remains in force and the patent holder retains the right to file new infringement actions. Sellers of folding wireless charging stands dismissed from this Schedule A action received no merits ruling and no covenant not to sue. An FTO analysis against USD1019552S remains advisable for any company in this product category.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.