Fei Zhang v. JPFreepe: Wireless Charger Design Patent Dispute Dismissed Without Prejudice
Plaintiff Fei Zhang filed a design patent infringement action against JPFreepe in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting USD889403S covering wireless chargers. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 61 days after filing — leaving the door open for refiling.
Swift voluntary exit in a wireless charger design patent dispute
On 16 November 2023, plaintiff Fei Zhang filed an infringement action against defendant JPFreepe in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, presided over by Chief Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings. The case centred on design patent USD889403S (application number US29/716603), which protects the ornamental appearance of a wireless charger. JPFreepe, the named defendant, was alleged to have infringed that design through products marketed as wireless chargers.
Exactly 61 days after filing, on 16 January 2024, Fei Zhang voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This rule permits a plaintiff to dismiss as of right — without court approval — before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The without-prejudice designation means the dismissal does not constitute a final judgment on the merits, and Zhang retains the legal ability to refile the same claims against JPFreepe in the future.
A resolution in 61 days is notably swift, suggesting the parties may have reached an informal arrangement, that Zhang identified a factual or procedural issue requiring reassessment, or that a licensing negotiation was initiated off the record. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, financial consideration, or consent order, leaving the true driver of the early exit unknown. Competitors and design patent holders in the wireless charging space should note that the underlying patent remains active and enforceable.
Filing to voluntary dismissal in 61 days
61 days — resolved faster than the majority of patent infringement cases at district court level
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): Dismissal as of right
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order — and without prejudice by default — before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because this right is unilateral, no judicial finding on the merits was made. JPFreepe neither admitted nor denied infringement, and the court issued no ruling on the validity or scope of USD889403S.
No merits rulingWithout prejudice: what the public record does and does not tell us
A dismissal without prejudice means Zhang’s claims were not adjudicated and the action can be refiled. A dismissal with prejudice, by contrast, would bar refiling permanently. The court filing confirms this was without prejudice, but the public record is silent on whether any side agreement, licensing term, or covenant not to sue accompanied the dismissal. Practitioners should not assume the matter is fully resolved simply because the docket is closed.
Refiling remains possibleUSD889403S remains enforceable after dismissal
The dismissal without prejudice does not affect the legal status of design patent USD889403S. The patent was not invalidated, disclaimed, or narrowed by these proceedings. Any third party currently making, using, or selling a wireless charger with a design substantially similar to the patented ornamental appearance remains potentially exposed to a future infringement action from Zhang or any subsequent assignee of the patent.
Patent still live61-day exit suggests pre-litigation dynamics may have driven resolution
Cases dismissed this early — before any substantive motion practice — frequently reflect an off-record resolution such as a licence, a cease-and-desist compliance, or a reassessment of litigation strategy. The engagement of counsel on both sides (Au LLC for Zhang; Scienbizip, PC for JPFreepe) suggests the matter was taken seriously, yet neither side proceeded to contested motion practice. The precise catalyst for the early exit is not disclosed in public filings.
Possible off-record resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Fei Zhang | Company | Individual design patent holder — asserting USD889403S covering wireless charger ornamental designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Jpfreepe | Company | JPFreepe — entity alleged to sell wireless chargers infringing the asserted design patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam Edward Urbanczyk | Attorney | Counsel for Fei ZhangSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Hua Chen | Attorney | Counsel for JpfreepeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeffrey I Cummings | Chief Judge | Illinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal was filed unilaterally by plaintiff Fei Zhang under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning no court approval was required and no substantive ruling was issued. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ designation preserves Zhang’s right to refile the same infringement claims against JPFreepe at any future point within any applicable statute of limitations. JPFreepe obtained no formal vindication — the docket closure does not constitute a finding of non-infringement or patent invalidity.
USD889403S — Ornamental Design for a Wireless Charger
USD889403S is a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a wireless charger, filed under application number US29/716603. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of a functional item — not its underlying technology. Protection is assessed by the ‘ordinary observer’ test: would an ordinary observer, familiar with prior designs, be deceived into thinking the accused product is the same as the patented design? The scope of protection is defined entirely by the drawings in the patent grant.
Wireless charger design patents are commercially significant because consumer purchasing decisions in accessories are heavily influenced by visual appearance. A valid design patent can block imports, online marketplace listings, and retail sales of products with confusingly similar aesthetics — even if the charging technology itself differs. In the context of e-commerce, where product images drive purchase decisions, design patent enforcement can be a powerful tool for both brand protection and competitive exclusion.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD889403S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, distributing, or retailing wireless chargers — particularly those sold through online marketplaces — should assess potential exposure to USD889403S. The fact that this patent has already been asserted in federal litigation confirms the holder is willing to enforce. Design patent infringement analysis requires a visual comparison of your product’s ornamental features against the patent drawings; functional differences alone do not provide a defence.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and IP teams to run rapid design patent clearance searches, compare ornamental claim scope, and set up monitoring alerts for new filings by the same applicant or within the same design classification. For wireless charger portfolios, ongoing claim monitoring is particularly important — related continuation design applications may issue from the same priority family and extend the zone of risk beyond USD889403S alone.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0889403S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in wireless charger and consumer electronics
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the wireless charger design patent landscape
Design patent enforcement in consumer electronics accessories is active and can move quickly — even if individual cases close without a public ruling.
Design patents on wireless chargers are actively enforced
This case confirms that individual design patent holders are willing to assert ornamental design rights in wireless charger products through federal district court actions. Companies sourcing, importing, or selling wireless chargers should conduct design patent clearance searches — particularly for USPTO design patents with application numbers in the US29/ series, which cover industrial design appearances.
Early voluntary dismissal does not signal patent weakness
A without-prejudice dismissal after 61 days should not be read as evidence that USD889403S is invalid or unenforceable. The patent was never tested. Defendants facing similar actions from this plaintiff — or assignees of this patent — cannot rely on the dismissal as a precedent or a shield against future claims. Proactive invalidity analysis remains the prudent approach.
Fei v Jpfreepe — key questions answered
Fei Zhang filed a design patent infringement action against JPFreepe in the Northern District of Illinois on 16 November 2023, asserting USD889403S covering wireless chargers. Zhang voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on 16 January 2024 — just 61 days after filing — under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No merits ruling was issued.
Dismissal without prejudice means the court made no ruling on whether JPFreepe infringed USD889403S or whether the patent is valid. Fei Zhang retains the right to refile the same claims against JPFreepe in the future. The dismissal does not bar future litigation, nor does it extinguish the patent’s enforceability against other parties.
USD889403S (application number US29/716603) is a U.S. design patent that protects the ornamental appearance — not the functional technology — of a wireless charger. Design patents of this type are enforced using the ‘ordinary observer’ test, which asks whether a buyer would mistake the accused product for the patented design based on its visual characteristics.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the early voluntary dismissal. Cases resolved this quickly — before any substantive motion practice — may reflect an informal settlement, a licensing agreement, a compliance undertaking by the defendant, or a plaintiff’s reassessment of litigation strategy. Neither party has made a public statement explaining the dismissal.
No. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) has no effect on the legal status or enforceability of USD889403S. The patent was not challenged, adjudicated, or narrowed during the proceedings. Third parties in the wireless charger space should treat the patent as fully active and enforceable.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.