Finger Stretching Device Patent Case Ends in Voluntary Dismissal: Shenzhen Kunshengze v. Schedule A Defendants
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| Case Number | 1:24-cv-02472 (N.D. Ill.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Duration | March 27, 2024 – July 2, 2024 97 days |
| Outcome | Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Finger stretching apparatus units sold by defendant storefronts |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
China-based electronic commerce company and design patent holder, actively enforcing U.S. design patent rights against online marketplace sellers.
🛡️ Defendants
Hundreds of anonymous online sellers operating across platforms like eBay, targeted for alleged infringement of design patent USD0980990S.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on design patent **USD0980990S** (U.S. Application No. 29/814406), covering the ornamental design of a finger stretching apparatus. Design patents protect visual aesthetics rather than functional features, making claim scope defined primarily by the drawings filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The commercial value of this type of design patent lies in its ability to block visually similar competing products from online marketplaces.
- • US D0980990S — Ornamental design of a finger stretching apparatus
Developing a similar rehabilitation device?
Ensure your product’s design has freedom to operate before launching on e-commerce platforms.
Litigation Outcome & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case concluded via **voluntary dismissal with prejudice** under **Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)** against ten named defendants. No damages award was formally entered, and no injunctive relief was issued in the public record. This outcome is typical for Schedule A cases where defendants settle privately or discontinue alleged infringement after being identified.
Legal Significance
This case does not produce binding precedent on design patent claim scope or infringement doctrine due to its procedural resolution. However, it reinforces several procedural norms significant to design patent practitioners:
- • **Rule 41(a)(1) remains a powerful exit tool** in multi-defendant Schedule A cases, enabling selective resolution without judicial intervention.
- • Design patent **USD0980990S was never challenged on validity**, leaving the patent’s enforceability intact for future assertion campaigns.
- • The Northern District of Illinois’s **receptivity to Schedule A filings** is further evidenced by this case’s efficient processing timeline.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in consumer health and rehabilitation device design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- Identify key design elements at risk in the consumer health space
- Analyze enforcement trends by Chinese IP holders
- Understand procedural aspects of Schedule A litigation
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Ornamental designs for rehabilitation devices
1 Patent at Issue
USD0980990S asserted
Design-Around Options
Available for most claims
✅ Key Takeaways
Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a tactically flexible resolution tool in multi-defendant Schedule A campaigns.
Search related case law →The patent’s validity was never challenged, preserving USD0980990S for future enforcement actions.
Explore design patent validity tools →Frequently Asked Questions
Design patent USD0980990S (U.S. Application No. 29/814406), covering the ornamental design of a finger stretching apparatus.
The plaintiff filed a Rule 41(a)(1) motion dismissing claims against ten non-appearing defendants with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs — consistent with off-platform resolution or strategic case narrowing.
Because no validity or infringement ruling was issued, USD0980990S remains fully enforceable, and the Schedule A enforcement model demonstrated here may be replicated against new marketplace defendants.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — Case No. 1:24-cv-02472 (PACER)
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Design Patent USD0980990S
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.