Fangqun Li v. Schedule A Defendants: Lamp Design Patent Action Dismissed Without Prejudice
Fangqun Li asserted design patent USD1029350S — covering a small lamp device — against anonymous Walmart marketplace sellers. After 134 days and before any defendant answered, all four named sellers were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, with a request to lift the TRO-based account freeze on Walmart.com.
Walmart Marketplace TRO Unwound as Lamp Design Claims Dropped
On October 29, 2024, Fangqun Li filed suit in the Virginia Eastern District Court against a group of unincorporated online sellers identified in a Schedule A — a format commonly used in e-commerce IP enforcement actions targeting anonymous marketplace vendors. The asserted patent, USD1029350S (application no. US29/869736), covers the ornamental design of a small lamp product marketed as the ‘Small Lamp (N69)’. The action alleged infringement by sellers operating on Walmart.com, and appears to have been accompanied by a temporary restraining order freezing the defendants’ seller accounts.
The case closed on March 12, 2025 — 134 days after filing — when Fangqun Li filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal without prejudice targeting four specifically named defendants: Lweong Co. Ltd. (Store ID 101573669), Xinwanna Co. Ltd. (Store ID 101224476), Chicmine Co. Ltd. (Store ID 101233145), and GoldHub Co. Ltd. (Store ID 101662883). The plaintiff simultaneously requested the court order Walmart.com to release those sellers from the TRO-based account hold. Because no defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permitted dismissal without a court order.
The dismissal without prejudice preserves Fangqun Li’s right to refile claims — a meaningful distinction in Schedule A enforcement practice, where plaintiffs sometimes dismiss individual sellers after extracting settlements or after identifying misidentified targets. The public record does not reveal whether any payment, licensing agreement, or identification of additional infringing stores drove the decision to dismiss. The relatively short 134-day lifespan and the absence of any defendant representation on record are consistent with the broader pattern of TRO-based e-commerce enforcement campaigns.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 134 days
134 days — resolved before any defendant answered or filed a dispositive motion
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice: what Rule 41 means here
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court order needed
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, none of the four named defendants had answered, so the plaintiff was entitled to dismiss as of right. The court’s role was limited to processing the TRO release request.
Pre-answer dismissalWithout prejudice: the door remains open for Fangqun Li
A dismissal without prejudice does not adjudicate the merits and does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the same claims against the same or different defendants. The public record is silent on whether a settlement, license, or mistaken identification prompted the dismissal. What is clear is that Fangqun Li retains the right to reassert USD1029350S against these sellers or others — a strategically significant distinction from a with-prejudice dismissal.
Claims may be refiledSellers released from TRO hold, but no merits ruling in their favour
The four named sellers — Lweong, Xinwanna, Chicmine, and GoldHub — had their Walmart.com store accounts frozen under the TRO. The dismissal releases them from that hold. Critically, no court determined that their products did not infringe USD1029350S. They received no finding of non-infringement and remain potentially exposed to future action by the same plaintiff.
No non-infringement findingSchedule A TRO actions: a common lamp and home goods enforcement tactic
Filing against anonymous Schedule A defendants with an accompanying TRO is a well-documented strategy in design patent enforcement against online marketplaces. The TRO freezes seller accounts and payment processors, creating immediate commercial pressure. Dismissal without prejudice after account freeze — before any defence is mounted — is consistent with either settlement, voluntary compliance, or plaintiff strategy adjustment. Walmart.com marketplace sellers in home goods and lighting categories face elevated exposure to this enforcement approach.
TRO-driven enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Fangqun Li | Individual | Individual design patent holder — asserting USD1029350S covering the ‘Small Lamp (N69)’ ornamental designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A | Individual | Unincorporated online sellers on Walmart.com marketplace, identified only by store IDs in Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph J. Zito | Attorney | Counsel for Fangqun LiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kendal Meredith Sheets | Attorney | Counsel for Fangqun LiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dnl Zito Castellano PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Fangqun LiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Virginia Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice explicitly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and confirms that none of the four defendants had answered or moved for summary judgment — the two conditions that make dismissal a matter of right rather than judicial discretion. The plaintiff’s request for the court to order Walmart.com to release the TRO-frozen accounts signals that the original filing was accompanied by emergency injunctive relief targeting payment and account infrastructure. No merits finding was made. The phrasing ‘without prejudice’ is operative and deliberate, preserving full refiling rights.
USD1029350S — Ornamental Design for a Small Lamp
USD1029350S, filed under application number US29/869736, is a United States design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a small lamp product commercially identified as the ‘Small Lamp (N69)’. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of a product — in this case, the specific form, shape, and aesthetic configuration of the lamp. Unlike utility patents, design patents do not protect how a product works, only how it looks. The patent’s scope is defined by its drawings, making the visual comparison between the patented design and accused products central to any infringement analysis.
Design patents covering consumer lighting and decorative home goods have become frequent tools in e-commerce enforcement campaigns, particularly against marketplace sellers sourcing products from overseas manufacturers. USD1029350S sits in a competitive product category where many superficially similar lamp designs are sold across Walmart.com, Amazon, and similar platforms. The ornamental scope of this patent — and whether it is broad or narrow relative to the prior art — is critical for any seller or manufacturer assessing exposure. A narrow design patent crowded by prior art may offer limited enforcement reach; a broader one with a clear design space could support multiple rounds of enforcement action.
Should your team run an FTO against USD1029350S?
Any brand, private-label seller, or manufacturer offering small decorative lamp products on Walmart.com, Amazon, or similar marketplaces should assess their exposure to USD1029350S. The ordinary observer test for design patent infringement is highly visual and fact-specific — products that appear similar to the Small Lamp (N69) design in overall impression may be at risk even if individual elements differ. Given the TRO-based enforcement approach demonstrated in this case, the consequence of not acting is a frozen marketplace account, not just litigation exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental scope of USD1029350S against your product’s design, surface prior art that may narrow the patent’s enforceable scope, and identify the plaintiff’s enforcement history across related filings. For in-house IP teams and outside counsel advising e-commerce clients, Eureka’s design patent analysis tools provide the structured visual and citation analysis needed to assess risk before a TRO lands — not after.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1029350S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Cases in E-Commerce Lighting
Cases filed in Virginia Eastern District Court asserting design patents against anonymous Schedule A marketplace defendants in the consumer lighting and home goods category.
What this case signals for the lamp and home goods IP landscape
Schedule A design patent actions with TROs are a growing enforcement tool targeting e-commerce sellers in the lighting and home goods sector.
TRO-based account freezes create immediate leverage before any defence is filed
In Schedule A actions, the TRO freezing marketplace accounts is often the primary enforcement lever. Sellers whose accounts are frozen face commercial harm well before any merits ruling. Marketplace vendors in lighting and home décor should audit their product listings against design patents in their category proactively, rather than reactively after account suspension.
Dismissal without prejudice means the patent remains live — and so does the risk
USD1029350S has not been invalidated, licensed, or adjudicated as non-infringed. Fangqun Li can refile against the same defendants or pursue new Schedule A defendants. Competitors and marketplace sellers offering similar small lamp designs should treat this dismissal as a pause, not a resolution of the underlying IP risk.
Li v Unincorporated — key questions answered
The plaintiff dismissed all claims against the four named defendants — Lweong, Xinwanna, Chicmine, and GoldHub — under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning the dismissal required no court order because none of the defendants had answered. ‘Without prejudice’ means Fangqun Li retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against those sellers or others in the future. No court ruled on whether the lamp design patent USD1029350S was infringed.
USD1029350S is a US design patent filed under application number US29/869736, protecting the ornamental design of a small decorative lamp product marketed as the ‘Small Lamp (N69)’. Design patents cover only the visual appearance of a product, not its functional features. Infringement is assessed using the ordinary observer test — whether an average consumer would mistake the accused product for the patented design.
The case record indicates a temporary restraining order was placed on the seller accounts of the named defendants on Walmart.com, freezing their stores and presumably associated payment processing. TROs in Schedule A e-commerce cases are a common enforcement mechanism that creates immediate commercial pressure on defendants before any merits hearing. Upon dismissal, Fangqun Li requested the court order Walmart.com to release the account holds.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Fangqun Li or any future assignee of USD1029350S may refile infringement claims against the same defendants. The four sellers received no finding of non-infringement. The dismissal does not preclude a new action asserting the same design patent against the same or additional Walmart.com sellers of comparable lamp products.
Fangqun Li was represented by Joseph J. Zito and Kendal Meredith Sheets of DNL Zito Castellano PLLC. This firm is known for e-commerce IP enforcement actions using the Schedule A / John Doe format with accompanying TRO applications. Their approach typically involves filing against large groups of anonymous sellers, obtaining emergency account freezes, and resolving cases through individual dismissals — a pattern consistent with the outcome observed in this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.