Dongguan Saienchuangke v. Schedule A Defendants: Design Patent Severed & Stayed
A Chinese consumer-goods manufacturer asserted design patent USD1026139S — covering ornamental wavy-line designs on spherical reusable water balloons — against a Schedule A roster of Amazon sellers in the Southern District of Florida. After 370 days, the court severed claims against each defendant group into separate actions and administratively closed the case, stopping short of any merits ruling.
Schedule A design patent action severed before any merits ruling
On May 22, 2024, Dongguan Saienchuangke Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese consumer-goods manufacturer, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 0:24-cv-60865) against an array of anonymous individuals, partnerships, and unincorporated associations identified on a Schedule A attachment — a common filing structure targeting online marketplace sellers alleged to infringe design patent USD1026139S. The patent, filed under application number US29/777659, protects the ornamental wavy-line surface design of a spherical reusable water balloon product sold on platforms such as Amazon.
On May 27, 2025, the court issued a comprehensive procedural order that severed the plaintiff’s claims against P&C Direct, LIN&BABAY Direct, Zhangyueyuan, the ‘Defaulted Defendants,’ and the Thornburg Defendants into separate individual actions. The original case was administratively closed for statistical purposes only. The court denied without prejudice the plaintiff’s pending motion for default judgment against LIN&BABAY and Zhangyueyuan, and permitted limited expedited discovery focused on U.S.-based Amazon sales data since May 7, 2024.
The 370-day timeline reflects the procedural complexity inherent in Schedule A multi-defendant design patent litigation, where courts increasingly require plaintiffs to pursue each defendant separately to ensure individualized due process. The court’s admonishment regarding Rule 11 obligations and the threat of with-prejudice dismissal for non-compliance suggests judicial concern about the sufficiency of the claims as pleaded. What remains unknown from the public record is whether the plaintiff will successfully refile within the 60-day window and whether any severed action will ultimately reach a merits determination.
Filing to Case Stayed in 370 days
370 days from filing to administrative closure — typical for a Schedule A multi-defendant design patent action in S.D. Fla.
Claims severed and stayed: what the court’s order means for each party
Severance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 — each defendant gets its own case
The court invoked its authority to sever misjoined defendants, a common judicial response to Schedule A bulk-defendant filings where defendants have no apparent connection to one another beyond the alleged common infringement. Severance means the consolidated action is split into independent lawsuits, each requiring separate filings, fees, and docket management. Administrative closure is procedural only — the underlying claims are not dismissed and the statute of limitations is expressly preserved by the court’s relate-back instruction.
Procedural severance — no merits rulingPlaintiff must refile within 60 days or risk losing its claims
Dongguan Saienchuangke retains the right to pursue each severed defendant but must file new individual lawsuits, pay separate filing fees, and correct pleading deficiencies identified by the court. The relate-back provision protects against statute-of-limitations expiry. However, the court’s Rule 11 admonishment and the threat of with-prejudice dismissal for non-compliance raise the litigation cost and compliance burden significantly. The denial without prejudice of the default judgment motion means those claims are not yet lost, but must be re-established in fresh proceedings.
Claims preserved — refiling requiredSevered defendants face individual suits with narrowed discovery scope
Each defendant group — including P&C Direct, LIN&BABAY Direct, Zhangyueyuan, the Defaulted Defendants, and the Thornburg Defendants — will face a separate action rather than being bundled in one proceeding. For defendants already in default, the denial without prejudice of the default judgment motion provides a temporary reprieve. Expedited discovery ordered by the court is limited to ten requests for production, ten requests for admissions, and five interrogatories per defendant, focused solely on U.S. Amazon sales of the accused water balloon products since May 7, 2024.
Individualized exposure — limited discoverySchedule A design patent enforcement against Amazon sellers: rising procedural hurdles
This case is consistent with a broader trend of S.D. Florida courts pushing back on bulk Schedule A filings by requiring individualized complaints and separate filing fees per defendant. For design patent holders targeting e-commerce infringers, this signals that enforcement costs are increasing. The court’s explicit Rule 11 warning also suggests heightened scrutiny of claim identification. Amazon sellers in the reusable water balloon and consumer outdoor goods category should monitor for individually refiled actions, as the relate-back ruling means infringement exposure dating to May 2024 is still live.
E-commerce enforcement — higher cost barFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dongguan Saienchuangke Technology Co., Ltd., | Company | Consumer goods manufacturer — holder of USD1026139S, ornamental water balloon design patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified on Schedule A, alleged to sell infringing water balloon products via AmazonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Jonathan Palmer | Attorney | Counsel for Dongguan Saienchuangke Technology Co., Ltd.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brandon Todd Holmes | Attorney | Counsel for Dongguan Saienchuangke Technology Co., Ltd.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Luca Lee Hickman | Attorney | Counsel for Dongguan Saienchuangke Technology Co., Ltd.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tianyu Ju | Attorney | Counsel for Dongguan Saienchuangke Technology Co., Ltd.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dongguan Saienchuangke Technology Co., Ltd.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Glacier Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dongguan Saienchuangke Technology Co., Ltd.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Palmer Law Group PA | Law Firm | Representing Dongguan Saienchuangke Technology Co., Ltd.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s May 27, 2025 order is procedural rather than substantive — it does not adjudicate infringement, validity, or damages under USD1026139S. The severance of each defendant group into independent actions reflects the court’s application of Rule 21 joinder principles and its concern that the consolidated complaint failed to adequately individuate claims. The denial without prejudice of the default judgment motion, combined with explicit Rule 11 warnings, suggests the court found insufficient evidentiary or pleading support to enter judgment at this stage. No merits determination has been made in favour of either party.
USD1026139S — Ornamental design for spherical reusable water balloon
USD1026139S, filed under application number US29/777659, is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a spherical reusable water balloon featuring a distinctive wavy-line surface pattern. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental appearance of a functional article — not the article’s utility. The scope of protection is defined by the patent’s drawings, making the specific geometry and visual character of the wavy-line pattern the critical boundary of enforceability. The ‘D’ prefix designation confirms this is a design patent, typically granting a term of 15 years from grant.
In the competitive consumer outdoor goods and toy market, design patents on visually distinctive products like reusable water balloons serve as a key barrier to copycat manufacturing, particularly from third-party Amazon marketplace sellers. The plaintiff’s assertion of USD1026139S against multiple Schedule A defendants — and the court’s narrow expedition of discovery to Amazon sales data specifically — suggests the design’s commercial value lies in its recognisable surface aesthetic that differentiates the product at point of sale. Competitors in the reusable water toy category should assess whether their product designs are sufficiently distinct from the wavy-line ornamental design claimed in the patent’s figures.
Should you run an FTO search against USD1026139S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling spherical reusable water balloons — particularly those distributed via Amazon or other U.S. e-commerce platforms — should consider a freedom-to-operate assessment against USD1026139S. The plaintiff has demonstrated willingness to enforce broadly, naming a large Schedule A roster of online sellers. Given the relate-back ruling in this case, infringement exposure potentially extends to sales as far back as May 2024, and the Thornburg Defendants remain in active litigation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD1026139S against your product’s design drawings, identify prior art that may support a design invalidity argument, and surface related design patent families that could signal further enforcement activity. For product teams developing reusable water toy SKUs, running this analysis before launch is materially cheaper than responding to a Schedule A complaint after the fact.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1026139S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent cases: Schedule A enforcement in S.D. Florida
Related Schedule A design patent infringement cases filed in the Southern District of Florida targeting Amazon marketplace sellers of consumer outdoor and toy products.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement on Amazon marketplaces
S.D. Florida’s severance order reflects a national pattern of courts resisting bulk Schedule A design patent tactics.
Schedule A bulk filings face mounting procedural resistance in S.D. Fla.
Courts in the Southern District of Florida are increasingly severing multi-defendant Schedule A complaints, requiring individual lawsuits per defendant. Design patent holders relying on this enforcement model should budget for multiplied filing fees and pleading-specific compliance reviews before initiating actions. The court’s Rule 11 warning here signals that boilerplate infringement claims across a roster of anonymous sellers will receive heightened scrutiny.
Relate-back provisions preserve exposure — sellers are not in the clear
The court’s explicit relate-back instruction means that statute-of-limitations protection does not benefit the severed defendants merely because the original case was administratively closed. Amazon sellers of spherical reusable water balloon products with wavy-line surface designs who were named in the original Schedule A remain at risk of individual suits with infringement claims dating back to May 2024. IP monitoring for USD1026139S and related design applications is advisable.
Dongguan v Individuals — key questions answered
The Southern District of Florida administratively closed the case on May 27, 2025, after severing the plaintiff’s claims against each defendant group into separate individual actions. No merits ruling on infringement of USD1026139S was reached. The plaintiff must refile individual lawsuits within 60 days, with claims relating back to the original May 2024 filing date.
USD1026139S (App. No. US29/777659) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental wavy-line surface design of a spherical reusable water balloon. The plaintiff asserted it against Schedule A defendants selling allegedly infringing versions of the product on Amazon. Design patents protect visual appearance, so the critical enforcement question is whether the accused products are substantially similar in ornamental appearance to the patent’s drawings.
Courts in the Southern District of Florida have increasingly applied Rule 21 to sever bulk Schedule A complaints where defendants share no connection beyond the alleged common infringement. The court found the consolidated action procedurally deficient and required the plaintiff to pursue each defendant in a separate lawsuit with individualized complaints, correcting pleading deficiencies identified at the May 23, 2025 hearing.
No. Administrative closure in this context is procedural only — the court expressly stated the closure is ‘for statistical purposes only.’ The plaintiff’s claims are not dismissed and the statute of limitations is protected by a relate-back ruling. Each severed defendant group may face a new individual lawsuit within 60 days of May 23, 2025. The Thornburg Defendants remain in the original action.
The court admonished Dongguan Saienchuangke that any refiled claims must be based on a good-faith factual and legal basis for each identified defendant, and that failure to comply could result in sanctions including with-prejudice dismissal. This reflects judicial concern about boilerplate Schedule A filings and signals that the plaintiff must conduct individualized pre-filing diligence before naming each defendant in the refiled actions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.