Fei Deng v. Schedule A Defendants: Fidget Keychain Design Patent Dismissed
Plaintiff Fei Deng filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois targeting anonymous e-commerce sellers over USD1032188S, a design patent covering a square fidget pop keychain. The case closed in 125 days when Deng voluntarily dismissed defendant Mozaci without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before any answer was filed.
E-commerce design patent sweep ends in voluntary dismissal
On November 16, 2024, plaintiff Fei Deng filed a design patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-11813) against a group of unnamed online sellers collectively designated as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations in Schedule A.’ The asserted patent, USD1032188S (application no. US29/874526), covers the ornamental design of a square fidget pop keychain — a consumer novelty product sold widely across third-party e-commerce platforms. Counsel of record for Deng was Robert Michael Dewitty of Dewitty and Associates, Chtd., a firm experienced in Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions.
The case closed on March 21, 2025, 125 days after filing, when Deng filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to defendant Mozaci without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). That rule permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order where the defendant has not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. No answer or substantive motion was filed by Mozaci, and the public record does not disclose whether a private resolution — such as a licensing agreement or takedown compliance — preceded the dismissal.
A 125-day lifecycle is consistent with the tactical pattern common to Schedule A enforcement: plaintiffs secure a temporary restraining order to freeze seller accounts, then negotiate or selectively dismiss defendants as matters resolve off the docket. The absence of any defendant law firm on the record further suggests Mozaci did not mount a formal defence. What remains unknown from the public record is whether other Schedule A defendants in this action remain active, and whether the dismissal without prejudice preserves Deng’s option to refile against Mozaci if further infringement is detected.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 125 days
125 days — faster than the N.D. Illinois median for design patent cases, suggesting early resolution before responsive pleading
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order — and without prejudice — at any time before the defendant files an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Mozaci filed neither, Deng could exit the case unilaterally. This is a procedural dismissal only; no court evaluated the merits of the infringement claim or the validity of USD1032188S.
Procedural — no merits rulingWithout prejudice — but the record does not say why
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims in future. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would bar refiling permanently. Here, Deng chose without prejudice. Critically, the public record is silent on what — if anything — drove this choice. It could reflect a private settlement, takedown compliance, or simply a tactical deprioritisation. Practitioners should not assume a commercial resolution occurred.
Refiling right preservedMozaci exits without any merits finding — but risk remains
Mozaci benefits from the absence of any adverse judgment, injunction, or damages award. No finding of infringement was made. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, Mozaci faces continued exposure if Deng elects to refile — particularly if the same or similar products reappear on e-commerce platforms. The lack of a with-prejudice dismissal or a written settlement agreement on the record means the dispute is, legally, unresolved.
No injunction; exposure persistsSchedule A tactics signal ongoing enforcement risk for platform sellers
This case is consistent with a broader enforcement pattern in which design patent holders use Schedule A complaints to target anonymous online sellers en masse. E-commerce sellers of novelty and tactile consumer products — particularly fidget, sensory, and keychain accessories — should treat this action as a market signal. USD1032188S remains valid and enforceable; Deng retains full rights to assert it against other sellers or to refile against Mozaci.
Design patent remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Fei Deng | Individual | Consumer novelty product designer and IP enforcer — holder of USD1032188SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations in Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers (Schedule A); named defendant Mozaci, no counsel on recordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Michael Dewitty | Attorney | Counsel for Fei DengSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dewitty And Associates, Chtd. | Law Firm | Representing Fei DengSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sunil R. Harjani | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and is explicit that Mozaci had filed neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment — the two procedural triggers that would have required court approval for dismissal. The ‘without prejudice’ qualifier is the operative commercial term: it leaves the plaintiff’s enforcement position intact. No court endorsed or evaluated the underlying infringement claim, and USD1032188S received no judicial scrutiny in this proceeding. The verdict text does not reference any other named Schedule A defendants, suggesting their status may differ.
USD1032188S — Square Fidget Pop Keychain Ornamental Design
USD1032188S, filed under application number US29/874526, is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a square fidget pop keychain. Design patents cover the visual, non-functional characteristics of a product — meaning protection extends to the specific shape, surface pattern, and aesthetic configuration depicted in the patent drawings, not to the underlying tactile or sensory function. The filing reflects the growing practise of securing design IP in the mass-market consumer novelty segment, where aesthetic differentiation is commercially significant and copying on e-commerce platforms is widespread.
In the consumer novelty and fidget accessory market, design patents serve as a primary enforcement tool because the ornamental appearance of a product — not a technical invention — is the core commercial asset. USD1032188S gives Deng a basis to challenge sellers whose products are substantially similar in overall visual impression to the protected design. Given that square fidget pop keychains are sold by numerous anonymous sellers across major platforms, the patent’s enforcement utility depends heavily on the plaintiff’s willingness to pursue serial Schedule A actions — a strategy this case suggests is actively in use.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD1032188S?
Any company or seller sourcing, manufacturing, or listing square fidget pop keychain products — or visually similar tactile keychain accessories — should assess clearance against USD1032188S before product launch or continued listing. Design patent infringement is judged by the ‘ordinary observer’ test: if an ordinary consumer would mistake the accused product for the patented design, infringement may be found. This is a low threshold in the novelty accessories category, where product designs are closely clustered. The risk is heightened for sellers on platforms where Schedule A complaints are regularly filed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual design space around USD1032188S, identify related design patent families, and surface prior art that may inform design-around strategies or validity challenges. For product teams launching in the fidget, sensory, or keychain accessory category, Eureka can also flag co-pending design applications by the same applicant — providing early warning of expanding enforcement coverage before additional patents issue.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1032188S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving design patent enforcement against anonymous e-commerce sellers in the Northern District of Illinois, covering consumer novelty and tactile accessory products.
What this case signals for the consumer novelty IP enforcement landscape
Schedule A design patent filings in N.D. Illinois are a structured enforcement tool — understanding the pattern is essential for platform sellers and IP teams.
USD1032188S is still live — any square fidget pop keychain seller is exposed
The voluntary dismissal did not invalidate or limit USD1032188S. The design patent remains fully enforceable. Sellers offering square fidget pop keychain products on Amazon, eBay, Shopify, or other platforms should conduct a clearance review before or during any product listing, as Deng retains the right to bring new actions against new defendants.
No answer filed means no invalidity record — the patent was never tested
Because Mozaci did not file an answer or any invalidity counterclaim, there is no public litigation record challenging USD1032188S. Patent holders in Schedule A cases often benefit from this dynamic: early dismissals leave the asserted patent untested. Competitors and sellers cannot rely on this case as evidence of weakness in the patent’s scope or validity.
Deng v Partnerships — key questions answered
Fei Deng filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous e-commerce sellers over USD1032188S, covering a square fidget pop keychain. The case closed after 125 days when Deng voluntarily dismissed defendant Mozaci without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before Mozaci filed any answer or dispositive motion.
Mozaci received no adverse judgment and faces no injunction or damages order. However, the dismissal without prejudice means Deng retains the right to refile the same infringement claims in future. The public record does not disclose whether a private resolution preceded the dismissal, so the underlying dispute should be treated as legally unresolved.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal had no effect on the validity or enforceability of USD1032188S. No court reviewed or invalidated the patent in this proceeding. Deng retains full rights to assert the design patent against Mozaci or any other seller whose products are substantially similar in overall visual impression to the protected square fidget pop keychain design.
A Schedule A complaint is a litigation tactic used in N.D. Illinois and other courts in which a plaintiff files a single complaint against a large number of anonymous online sellers, identified only in a sealed schedule. Plaintiffs typically seek a TRO to freeze seller accounts and marketplace balances simultaneously. Defendants are then individually resolved — by settlement, default, or dismissal — often without ever appearing in court.
U.S. design patent infringement is evaluated under the ‘ordinary observer’ test established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa (Fed. Cir. 2008). Infringement is found if an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into thinking the accused product is the same as the patented design. For USD1032188S, this means the overall visual impression of a seller’s square fidget pop keychain is compared to the patent drawings — functional differences are irrelevant to the analysis.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.