Forum Shopping Fails: Backpack Design Patent Case Transferred

Introduction

In a pointed rebuke of litigation forum shopping, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania swiftly dismantled a temporary restraining order and transferred a backpack design patent infringement case back to its proper jurisdiction — all within 62 days of filing. In Dongguan Deego Trading Co., Ltd. v. JUNYAO-US (Case No. 2:25-cv-00321), Chief Judge Cathy Bissoon found that the plaintiff had deliberately filed in Pennsylvania to circumvent an Illinois federal judge’s prior instructions, constituting a direct attempt to litigate in a more favorable forum.

The case centers on U.S. Design Patent No. USD0979932S (Application No. 29/868,385), covering a backpack design. Though the underlying design patent infringement claim remains unresolved, the procedural outcome carries significant lessons for IP litigators, in-house counsel, and enforcement strategy teams — particularly those operating in the increasingly active arena of design patent litigation against marketplace sellers.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

The patent at issue is U.S. Design Patent No. USD0979932S (corrected application number: US 29/868,385). Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture — in this case, a backpack. Unlike utility patents, design patent infringement is assessed under the “ordinary observer” test established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., asking whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product substantially similar to the patented design.

• • US D0979932S — Backpack Design

The Accused Product

The accused product is a backpack sold commercially by JUNYAO-US, alleged by Deego to embody the ornamental design claimed in USD0979932S. The commercial stakes involve online marketplace sales, a context where design patent enforcement actions — often targeting multiple sellers simultaneously through “Schedule A” complaints — have become a prominent litigation strategy.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff (Deego): Attorney Ge Lei of Getech Law LLC

Defendant (JUNYAO-US): Attorney Lauren Brette Sabol of Fox Rothschild LLP

Fox Rothschild’s involvement signals that JUNYAO-US retained experienced national IP litigation counsel, contributing to the rapid and effective procedural defense that unraveled the TRO within weeks.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case resolved in a remarkable 62 days — well below the average lifecycle of patent infringement litigation, which routinely spans 18–36 months. This compressed timeline reflects the purely procedural nature of the outcome: the court never reached the merits of the design patent infringement claim.

The speed of resolution also highlights the efficiency risk for plaintiffs who file in improper venues. Rather than gaining tactical advantage, Deego lost its TRO, incurred additional litigation costs, and returned to the jurisdiction it sought to avoid — now under heightened judicial scrutiny.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

Chief Judge Bissoon issued a decisive dual order on May 5, 2025:

1. Defendants’ Motions to Dissolve the TRO were GRANTED — the temporary restraining order previously issued against JUNYAO-US was lifted in its entirety.
2. The case was TRANSFERRED FORTHWITH to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, designated as related to Case No. 1:24-cv-12944 before Judge Tharp.

No damages were awarded. No permanent injunction was entered. The transfer order effectively reset Deego’s enforcement efforts against JUNYAO-US to square one — this time under direct judicial supervision of a judge already familiar with Deego’s litigation conduct.

Forum Shopping Analysis

The court’s order is unusually direct in its characterization of plaintiff’s conduct. Judge Bissoon expressly found that Deego filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania “in an attempt to circumvent Judge Tharp and litigate the case in a (perceived) more favorable forum.” Critically, this finding was grounded in concrete prior instructions: Judge Tharp had explicitly directed Deego at Docket No. 18 in the Illinois action that any reasserted claims against original defendants must be filed as a new related case in the Northern District of Illinois.

Deego’s failure to comply — filing instead in Pennsylvania without noting the related case — constituted not merely procedural error but, in the court’s view, a direct contravention of a sitting federal judge’s instructions. This framing elevates the conduct beyond mere forum selection strategy into potential bad faith litigation, a characterization that could carry consequences before Judge Tharp upon transfer.

TRO Dissolution: Strategic Implications

Temporary restraining orders are a cornerstone of plaintiff strategy in e-commerce design patent enforcement. The TRO mechanism allows plaintiffs to freeze defendant assets and obtain marketplace delisting on an expedited, often ex parte basis — before defendants have an opportunity to respond. When courts grant TROs in these cases, defendants face immediate commercial harm.

Here, the TRO’s dissolution resulted not from a merits-based infringement defense but from a successful procedural challenge. Defense counsel at Fox Rothschild identified the forum defect and moved swiftly, demonstrating that procedural vigilance can neutralize a TRO even without reaching claim construction or infringement analysis.

Legal Significance

This case does not produce precedential rulings on design patent claim scope, the ordinary observer test, or validity — because it never reached those questions. Its significance lies entirely in the procedural and strategic domain:

• Courts are actively scrutinizing Schedule A-style multi-defendant design patent litigation for venue manipulation.
• Explicit prior judicial instructions create binding obligations that cannot be evaded through new filings in alternative districts.
• Violating those instructions risks not only transfer but reputational damage before the receiving court.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The Deego v. JUNYAO-US case reflects a broader trend: Chinese manufacturers and trading companies holding U.S. design patents are aggressively enforcing those rights against competing marketplace sellers through coordinated Schedule A litigation campaigns. These cases typically name dozens of defendants, seek ex parte TROs and asset freezes, and rely on expedited procedures to extract settlements before defendants can mount substantive defenses.

However, federal courts — including the Northern District of Illinois, which handles a disproportionate share of these cases — have grown increasingly skeptical of abusive Schedule A tactics. Judge Tharp’s prior instructions to Deego, and Judge Bissoon’s swift enforcement of those instructions, signal that judicial patience with procedural manipulation in this litigation model is limited.

For companies operating in the consumer goods and e-commerce space, this case reinforces the need for proactive IP risk management. Design patent portfolios in product categories like bags, backpacks, and accessories are proliferating, and the cost of responding to a TRO — even one that is ultimately dissolved — can be substantial.

Licensing trends in this space suggest that many Schedule A defendants settle quickly to restore marketplace listings, often for amounts that make individual defense economically irrational. This case is notable precisely because JUNYAO-US retained capable counsel and successfully challenged the TRO on procedural grounds rather than capitulating.

FAQ

What patent was involved in Dongguan Deego v. JUNYAO-US?

U.S. Design Patent No. USD0979932S (Application No. 29/868,385), covering the ornamental design of a backpack.

Why was the case transferred from Pennsylvania to Illinois?

Chief Judge Bissoon found that Deego filed in Pennsylvania to circumvent Judge Tharp’s prior instructions requiring any related claims to be re-filed as related to Case No. 1:24-cv-12944 in the Northern District of Illinois.

What happened to the Temporary Restraining Order?

The TRO was dissolved on May 5, 2025, following a May 1 hearing, after the court granted JUNYAO-US’s motions to dissolve.