Dongguan Naquan v. Binovo: Camping String Lights Patent Suit Dismissed in 25 Days
Dongguan Naquan E-Commerce Co., Ltd. brought a patent infringement claim against Binovo Manufacturing Co., Ltd. in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting US12146644B2 covering camping string lights. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) just 25 days after filing — leaving the door open for future action.
A 25-Day IP Skirmish in Outdoor Lighting That Resolved Without a Ruling
On 1 June 2025, Dongguan Naquan E-Commerce Co., Ltd., represented by Glacier Law LLP, filed a patent infringement action against Binovo Manufacturing Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. The suit centred on US12146644B2, a patent covering camping string lights, and alleged that Binovo’s products infringed that intellectual property.
Just 25 days later, on 26 June 2025, the plaintiff filed a voluntary notice of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing Binovo without prejudice. Because no answer or motion for summary judgment had been filed by the defendant, the dismissal was self-executing — no court order was required. Critically, dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff retains the legal right to refile the same claims against Binovo in the future.
A 25-day lifecycle is exceptionally short even by the standards of quick-turn e-commerce IP disputes. The absence of any defendant representation on record suggests Binovo may not have engaged counsel before the plaintiff chose to withdraw. Whether the dismissal reflects a private settlement, a decision to pursue a different enforcement strategy, or a tactical pause in litigation is not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 25 days
25 days — well below the median lifespan of patent cases in N.D. Illinois, suggesting early strategic reassessment
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41 withdrawal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): Self-executing voluntary dismissal
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal takes effect automatically upon filing. Here, no defendant response appears on the docket, making this mechanism available to the plaintiff as of right.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: the public record is explicit here
The dismissal notice expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning the plaintiff has not waived or extinguished its infringement claims. Dongguan Naquan retains the right to refile suit against Binovo on the same patent at any time within the applicable statute of limitations. This distinguishes the outcome from a dismissal with prejudice, which would permanently bar refiling. The public record is clear on this point.
Claims survive dismissalBinovo exits without admissions — but exposure persists
Binovo Manufacturing Co., Ltd. appears to have filed no response during the 25-day case window and no defendant counsel is listed on the docket. While Binovo avoids any adverse judgment here, the without-prejudice dismissal means it remains exposed to future litigation under US12146644B2. Continued sale of accused camping string lights products could invite a refiled or revised complaint.
No judgment; risk remainsE-commerce IP enforcement: a shot across the bow
This filing pattern — a rapid complaint followed by voluntary withdrawal — is increasingly common in cross-border e-commerce IP enforcement, particularly among Chinese IP holders targeting competing Amazon or online marketplace sellers. It may signal an ongoing monitoring and enforcement programme around US12146644B2. Competitors in the outdoor decorative lighting segment should treat this dismissal as a signal, not a clearance.
Monitor for refilingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dongguan Naquan E-Commerce Co., Ltd | Company | E-commerce lighting manufacturer — holder of US12146644B2 (camping string lights)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Binovo Manufacturing Co., Ltd | Company | Binovo Manufacturing Co., Ltd. — accused manufacturer of competing camping string lightsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tao Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Dongguan Naquan E-Commerce Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wei Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Dongguan Naquan E-Commerce Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Glacier Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dongguan Naquan E-Commerce 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), the self-executing voluntary dismissal mechanism available before any responsive pleading is filed. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ language is legally significant: it preserves the plaintiff’s claims in full. No merits determination was made, no claim construction occurred, and no validity or infringement findings were recorded. Both parties’ substantive positions remain entirely untested by the court.
US12146644B2 — Camping String Lights Outdoor Decorative Lighting
US12146644B2, filed under application number US18/212193, covers camping string lights — a product category at the intersection of portable outdoor equipment and decorative consumer electronics. String light systems in this segment typically involve weatherproofing, modular bulb configurations, and energy-efficient light sources suited for outdoor recreational use. The patent’s grant reflects a level of technical specificity sufficient to distinguish it from prior art in the crowded decorative lighting space.
The outdoor and camping lighting segment is commercially competitive, with numerous Chinese and international manufacturers supplying online marketplaces such as Amazon. A granted U.S. patent in this category provides its holder with meaningful enforcement leverage against competing listings. The filing of this suit — even followed by a quick withdrawal — suggests the patent holder is actively monitoring the competitive landscape and is willing to use litigation as an enforcement tool against manufacturers it identifies as infringing.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US12146644B2?
Any business manufacturing, importing, distributing, or retailing camping string lights or closely related outdoor decorative lighting products in the U.S. market should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against US12146644B2. The patent has been actively asserted within months of what appears to be a recent grant date, and the without-prejudice dismissal leaves enforcement risk fully intact. This is particularly relevant for sellers active on Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or similar platforms where competing listings are easily monitored by IP holders.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and legal teams to map product designs against the claim language of US12146644B2, identify design-around opportunities, and benchmark against cited prior art. Eureka can also surface related patent families and co-pending applications that may extend the holder’s protection beyond the single granted patent at issue in this case — giving your team a complete picture of freedom-to-operate risk before new products are launched or scaled.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12146644B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Infringement Cases in Outdoor Lighting & Consumer Electronics
Cases involving camping and decorative lighting patents in N.D. Illinois, particularly those filed by e-commerce plaintiffs via Glacier Law LLP and comparable boutiques.
What this case signals for the outdoor lighting IP enforcement landscape
A 25-day voluntary dismissal in N.D. Illinois rarely marks the end of a dispute — it often signals a strategic pivot.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve full enforcement optionality
Competitors and distributors of camping string lights should not interpret this dismissal as a clearance event. The plaintiff explicitly preserved its right to refile under US12146644B2. Any business currently selling products in this category should consider whether its supply chain overlaps with the accused product design.
Fast filings in N.D. Illinois are a known e-commerce enforcement tactic
Glacier Law LLP and similar IP boutiques frequently use rapid-filing strategies in Northern District of Illinois to gain leverage against online marketplace competitors. A quick dismissal without prejudice is consistent with a demand-letter or settlement approach, where litigation serves as a pressure mechanism rather than a path to trial.
Dongguan v Binovo — key questions answered
Dongguan Naquan filed a patent infringement suit against Binovo Manufacturing in the Northern District of Illinois on 1 June 2025, asserting US12146644B2 covering camping string lights. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on 26 June 2025 — just 25 days after filing. No merits ruling was issued.
A without-prejudice dismissal means Dongguan Naquan has not waived its infringement claims. It retains the right to refile suit against Binovo under US12146644B2 at any point within the applicable limitations period. Binovo received no judgment in its favour and cannot treat this dismissal as a legal clearance to continue selling accused products.
The patent at issue is US12146644B2, filed as application US18/212193. It relates to camping string lights — a category of outdoor decorative lighting products. The patent was actively asserted shortly after apparent grant, suggesting the holder is monitoring competing products in the e-commerce marketplace closely.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the 25-day dismissal. Possible explanations include a private settlement, a demand-letter resolution, a decision to refile with amended claims, or a strategic pause. The absence of any defendant counsel on record may indicate the parties communicated outside of formal litigation channels before the dismissal was filed.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action as of right, without a court order, before the defendant files an answer or motion for summary judgment. In e-commerce patent enforcement, this rule is frequently used to exit cases quickly when a commercial resolution is reached or strategy changes. The dismissal is self-executing and, when filed without prejudice, preserves all claims for potential refiling.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.