E-Link Plastic v. Mossime: Pill Box Design Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
E-Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co., Ltd. brought a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against Amazon marketplace seller mossime and related entities, asserting two design patents covering pill box products. After 560 days of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice — each side bearing its own costs.
Design patent war over pill boxes ends by mutual agreement in N.D. Illinois
E-Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co., Ltd., a manufacturer holding design patents on pill box configurations, filed suit on December 15, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a broad group of defendants — identified initially as ‘Entities and Individuals in Annex A’ — a filing format commonly used in multi-defendant e-commerce enforcement actions. Named defendants included Amazon store operators mossime and YAKLIM-US, accused of infringing two registered design patents: USD877489S1 and USD915060S1, both covering ornamental designs for pill boxes.
The case closed on June 27, 2025 via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), specifically between E-Link and defendant mossime (store No. 16). A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits: E-Link is permanently barred from re-asserting these claims against mossime based on the same facts. The parties agreed to bear their own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses, suggesting a negotiated resolution rather than a court-imposed outcome.
The 560-day duration is notable for a case resolved by stipulated dismissal, suggesting either substantive pre-trial litigation activity or protracted settlement negotiations before the parties reached agreement. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing arrangement, payment, or product modification accompanied the dismissal — terms typical of confidential settlements in e-commerce design patent disputes are not reflected in the court filings. The status of claims against YAKLIM-US and any remaining Annex A defendants relative to this specific stipulation is not expressly addressed in the available record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 560 days
560 days — longer than the median U.S. district court patent case resolved by stipulated dismissal
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): joint stipulation, no court order required
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires only a signed stipulation from all parties who have appeared — no judicial approval is needed. Filing the stipulation itself closes the case. Because the parties specified ‘with prejudice,’ the dismissal carries the same preclusive force as a final judgment: E-Link cannot refile these same claims against mossime on the same operative facts.
Final, court order not requiredWith prejudice: permanent bar on re-litigation
The stipulation explicitly states dismissal ‘with prejudice,’ distinguishing it from a without-prejudice dismissal that would allow re-filing. This means E-Link’s design patent infringement claims against mossime are permanently extinguished. In e-commerce enforcement campaigns, a with-prejudice dismissal often signals that the dispute has been fully resolved — whether by settlement payment, license, or product removal — though the specific terms remain confidential and are not disclosed in the public record.
Claims permanently extinguishedE-Link closes enforcement action but surrenders right to re-sue mossime
By agreeing to with-prejudice dismissal, E-Link foregoes any future litigation against mossime on these specific claims. This is consistent with either a negotiated resolution where E-Link’s commercial objectives were met, or a strategic decision to exit litigation. The own-costs provision means E-Link recovers no attorneys’ fees from mossime through this proceeding, which is typical in stipulated resolutions absent an exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
No fee recovery; no re-filingE-commerce design patent enforcement: high volume, uncertain recovery
This case typifies the ‘schedule A’ enforcement model used against Amazon marketplace sellers: broad defendant lists, rapid TRO applications, and settlement-driven resolution. The 560-day duration before stipulated dismissal suggests mossime may have contested the action more vigorously than typical in this model. Competitors and marketplace sellers in the pill organiser and small consumer goods space should note that E-Link’s two design patents remain active and enforceable against other parties.
Design patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | E-Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co., Ltd. | Company | Consumer goods manufacturer — holder of USD877489S1 and USD915060S1 design patents for pill boxesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A | Individual | Amazon marketplace seller mossime (store No. 16) and related e-commerce entities accused of design patent infringementSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | mossime | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | YAKLIM-US | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ge Lei | Attorney | Counsel for E-Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Getech Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing E-Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s phrasing — ‘dismissal of all claims brought in this action with prejudice’ — is intentionally comprehensive, extinguishing every cause of action asserted against mossime in the complaint. The own-costs provision forecloses any fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Notably, the stipulation is filed on behalf of E-Link and mossime specifically; it does not expressly address YAKLIM-US or other Annex A defendants, suggesting the resolution may be partial relative to the full defendant list.
USD877489S1 & USD915060S1 — Ornamental design patents for pill box products
USD877489S1 and USD915060S1 are U.S. design patents — identified by their ‘USD’ prefix — protecting the ornamental appearance of pill box products rather than functional features. Design patents grant the holder the exclusive right to the specific visual design as shown in the patent drawings. Application numbers US29/674770 and US29/730313 indicate these are continuation or related filings within the same design family, suggesting E-Link deliberately built a layered portfolio around its pill box aesthetic.
In a crowded consumer goods category such as pill organisers — dominated by low-cost imports sold through Amazon — design patents serve as practical enforcement tools because they require only visual similarity, not feature-by-feature functional analysis. E-Link’s decision to assert two related design patents in a single action against marketplace sellers reflects an enforcement posture consistent with protecting a product line from catalogue copying. Both patents remain active and enforceable against parties not covered by this dismissal, presenting ongoing FTO risk for any brand introducing pill box products with visual similarity to E-Link’s protected designs.
Should your team run an FTO against USD877489S1 and USD915060S1?
Any brand, private-label seller, or manufacturer developing or listing pill box or pill organiser products on Amazon or other e-commerce platforms should assess FTO exposure against E-Link’s two design patents. Design patent infringement is determined under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — if an ordinary consumer would likely mistake the accused product for the patented design, infringement may be found. This is a relatively low threshold in a category with many visually similar SKUs.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD877489S1 and USD915060S1 against your product designs, surface related design patent families, and identify prior art that could support invalidity challenges if needed. Given E-Link’s demonstrated willingness to litigate in N.D. Illinois — including against small Amazon sellers — an FTO review before product launch is a proportionate risk-management step for any team active in the pill organiser or small consumer health accessories space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD877489S1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent enforcement cases against Amazon sellers in N.D. Illinois
Browse related design patent infringement actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois targeting Amazon marketplace sellers of consumer goods, including pill organiser and health accessories cases.
What this case signals for consumer goods design patent enforcement
E-Link’s campaign illustrates both the leverage and the limits of design patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers.
Schedule A campaigns can stall — 560 days is atypically long for a stipulated exit
Most e-commerce ‘schedule A’ design patent cases in N.D. Illinois resolve within 6–12 months, often after a TRO. The 560-day duration here suggests mossime engaged meaningfully in the litigation rather than defaulting or settling early. IP enforcement teams should model for contested defendants when budgeting marketplace enforcement programmes.
Two design patents covering one product category signals deliberate portfolio stacking
Asserting USD877489S1 and USD915060S1 together — two design patents covering pill box configurations — is a deliberate strategy to increase claim scope and settlement leverage. Competitors active in the pill organiser category should audit both patents for FTO exposure before launching new SKUs on Amazon or similar platforms.
E-Link v Entities — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on June 27, 2025, specifying that all claims were dismissed with prejudice and that each party would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
E-Link asserted two U.S. design patents: USD877489S1 (application no. US29/674770) and USD915060S1 (application no. US29/730313). Both cover ornamental designs for pill box products. The patents are related filings, suggesting a deliberate layered design portfolio strategy by E-Link.
A with-prejudice dismissal is a permanent bar. E-Link cannot re-file the same design patent infringement claims against mossime based on the same operative facts. The dismissal carries the same preclusive effect as a final judgment on the merits, foreclosing future litigation on these specific claims.
The joint stipulation filed June 27, 2025 expressly covers E-Link and mossime (defendant No. 16). The public record does not confirm that YAKLIM-US or other Annex A defendants are covered by the same stipulation. Parties monitoring this docket should verify whether separate dispositive filings exist for remaining defendants.
Yes. A stipulated dismissal as to one defendant does not affect the validity or enforceability of the underlying patents. USD877489S1 and USD915060S1 remain active U.S. design patents. E-Link may continue to assert them against other parties. Sellers and manufacturers of visually similar pill box products retain FTO exposure to these patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.