Dongguan Shengchuang v. Schedule A Defendants: Double Hook Design Patent Dismissed in 34 Days
Dongguan Shengchuang Trading Co., Ltd. filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois asserting USD976690S — a double hook design patent — against multiple unnamed online marketplace defendants. The case closed in just 34 days via voluntary dismissal, with each party bearing its own costs.
A swift Schedule A design patent action resolved before any defendant appeared
On May 15, 2024, Dongguan Shengchuang Trading Co., Ltd., a Chinese trading company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — a favored venue for Schedule A patent enforcement actions — asserting infringement of USD976690S, a design patent covering a double hook product. The defendants were identified collectively as ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,’ a filing convention typically used to target multiple anonymous online sellers simultaneously.
On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically dismissing with prejudice all causes of action against named defendants Hangzi and TuJiangJiang (Schedule A line items 20 and 18 respectively). The notice stated that each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The court closed the case on June 18, 2024. While the dismissal of these specific defendants was explicitly stated as with prejudice, the public record does not detail whether all Schedule A defendants received identical treatment.
The 34-day lifespan is notably short even by Schedule A standards, suggesting either pre-litigation settlements, voluntary withdrawal after identifying incorrect targets, or quick resolution following temporary restraining order proceedings. The absence of any defendant appearance or answer, as noted in the filing, is characteristic of Schedule A enforcement actions where defendants often fail to engage with U.S. proceedings. The precise commercial terms, if any, reached with specific defendants remain undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 34 days
34 days — well below the median Schedule A case lifespan, suggesting rapid resolution
Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1): what the filing reveals
Rule 41(a)(1): dismissal without a court order
Rule 41(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order if no defendant has served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here, Plaintiff confirmed that neither Hangzi nor TuJiangJiang had appeared or filed any response, making Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal procedurally straightforward. The dismissal notice explicitly states it is with prejudice against these two defendants, meaning Plaintiff cannot re-file the same claims against them.
With prejudice — named defendantsWith vs. without prejudice: what the public record says
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is a final adjudication on the merits — the plaintiff is permanently barred from asserting the same claims against those defendants again. A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the right to refile. The notice explicitly states ‘with prejudice’ for Hangzi and TuJiangJiang. For any remaining Schedule A defendants not named in this notice, the public record is silent on whether separate dispositions occurred or what terms applied.
With prejudice confirmed for named defendantsPlaintiff permanently closes claims against two defendants
By dismissing with prejudice, Dongguan Shengchuang has permanently relinquished its infringement claims against Hangzi and TuJiangJiang under USD976690S. With each party bearing its own costs, there is no indication of a financial recovery from these defendants in the public record. This outcome is consistent with Schedule A actions where settlements, if any, are typically documented privately before a dismissal notice is filed.
No public recovery disclosedNamed defendants face no further liability on these claims
Hangzi and TuJiangJiang — neither of whom appeared in the proceedings — emerge from this action with no court-imposed liability and no attorneys’ fees obligation. The with-prejudice dismissal provides them finality against further suit by this plaintiff on the same patent claims. However, the underlying USD976690S design patent remains in force and could still be asserted against other accused infringers in future proceedings.
USD976690S remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dongguan Shengchuang Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer goods trading company — holder of USD976690S double hook design patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified collectively on Schedule A to the ComplaintSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Depeng Bi | Attorney | Counsel for Dongguan Shengchuang Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Konrad Val Sherinian | Attorney | Counsel for Dongguan Shengchuang Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC | Law Firm | Representing Dongguan Shengchuang Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Matthew F. Kennelly | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice is narrowly scoped: it explicitly names only Hangzi and TuJiangJiang as dismissed-with-prejudice defendants, citing their non-appearance as the procedural basis for Rule 41(a)(1) relief. The ‘each party bears its own costs’ clause is standard for uncontested Schedule A exits and does not reflect a merits determination. The notice does not address remaining Schedule A defendants, leaving the full disposition of the broader defendant pool unresolved in the public record.
USD976690S — ornamental design for a double hook product
USD976690S (application no. US29/850709) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a double hook product. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the way an article looks — not how it functions — and are infringed by products whose overall visual appearance is substantially similar to the patented design as perceived by an ordinary observer. The ‘USD’ prefix denotes a design patent, distinct from utility patents, and typically carries a 15-year term from grant.
Double hook products are widely manufactured and sold across online marketplaces, making design patents a common enforcement tool for Chinese consumer goods companies seeking to police copycat listings. USD976690S gives Dongguan Shengchuang a basis to target sellers whose product aesthetics closely mirror the patented design. For competitors and platform sellers, the key risk is that design patent infringement is assessed visually — minor functional differences offer limited protection if the ornamental appearance is substantially similar.
Should your double hook product be cleared against USD976690S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling double hook products on online marketplaces — particularly Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or similar platforms — should assess whether their product’s ornamental design could be considered substantially similar to USD976690S by an ordinary observer. Schedule A plaintiffs can obtain TROs and account freezes rapidly in the Northern District of Illinois, making pre-launch FTO analysis a material commercial risk-reduction step.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD976690S against your product design, identify related design patent families filed by Dongguan Shengchuang, and flag other asserted design patents in the double hook and consumer hardware space. Early clearance reduces the risk of costly account suspensions and downstream litigation exposure before product launch or marketplace listing.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0976690S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in the Northern District of Illinois
These cases involve design patent infringement actions against Schedule A online seller defendants in the Northern District of Illinois, covering consumer goods and hardware designs.
What this case signals for the Schedule A design patent enforcement landscape
Short-lived Schedule A actions like this one reveal how quickly online seller disputes can resolve — and what that means for IP strategy.
Schedule A actions regularly resolve before defendants appear
The Northern District of Illinois is the dominant venue for Schedule A patent enforcement. Cases closing in under 35 days — as here — typically reflect either pre-filing settlements, TRO-driven account freezes that prompt quick resolution, or plaintiff withdrawal after target review. Design patent holders in consumer goods should anticipate rapid case cycling.
With-prejudice dismissals protect defendants from serial re-filing
Where a Schedule A plaintiff dismisses with prejudice, as occurred here for Hangzi and TuJiangJiang, the named defendants gain meaningful finality. Online sellers who have been dismissed with prejudice from a design patent action can use that record defensively if the same plaintiff attempts re-assertion of the same patent.
Dongguan v Partnerships — key questions answered
Dongguan Shengchuang filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois asserting USD976690S against Schedule A defendants. On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice all claims against defendants Hangzi and TuJiangJiang under Rule 41(a)(1), with each party bearing its own costs. The case closed June 18, 2024 — 34 days after filing.
A with-prejudice dismissal is a final resolution that permanently bars Dongguan Shengchuang from asserting the same USD976690S infringement claims against Hangzi and TuJiangJiang in future proceedings. Neither defendant is required to pay attorneys’ fees or costs. The dismissal does not constitute a merits ruling on infringement.
The asserted patent is USD976690S (application no. US29/850709), a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a double hook product. Design patents protect visual aesthetics rather than functional features and are commonly enforced against online marketplace sellers of competing products with similar appearances.
Schedule A cases target multiple anonymous online sellers simultaneously. Rapid resolution — as seen in this 34-day case — typically results from temporary restraining orders freezing defendant accounts, prompting pre-trial settlements, or plaintiff withdrawal after identifying targets who lack assets or where claims cannot be sustained. Many defendants never appear, enabling Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal without court order.
No. The voluntary dismissal resolves only the claims against Hangzi and TuJiangJiang in this specific action. USD976690S remains a live, enforceable design patent. Dongguan Shengchuang or any successor in interest can continue to assert it against other parties in future infringement actions, subject to the patent’s remaining term.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.