Guangdong Aoyun v. Schedule A Defendants: Hand Warmer Patent Dispute Resolved in 39 Days
Guangdong Aoyun Technology Co Ltd. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting US11916334B1, a patent covering a combined type hand warmer, against a group of Schedule A defendants. The case closed just 39 days after filing, with all claims dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), each party bearing its own costs.
Schedule A hand warmer suit ends with prejudice dismissal in under six weeks
On 10 November 2024, Guangdong Aoyun Technology Co Ltd., a Chinese consumer electronics manufacturer, filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-11570) asserting US11916334B1 against a group of anonymous online sellers collectively identified as the Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule A. The asserted patent covers a combined type hand warmer — a portable consumer heating device. The case was assigned to Judge Georgia N. Alexakis.
The case closed on 19 December 2024, just 39 days after filing, when Guangdong Aoyun filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to five identified defendants. The dismissal was self-executing — no court order was required — and the parties agreed that each side would bear its own attorney’s fees and costs, with no pending motions at the time of filing.
The 39-day lifespan is notably brief even by the standards of Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions, which frequently resolve quickly through default judgments or early settlements. The public record does not disclose whether the dismissal reflected a confidential settlement, failure to identify or serve defendants, or a strategic withdrawal. The with-prejudice designation bars Guangdong Aoyun from refiling the same claims against these five defendants, a meaningful concession relative to a dismissal without prejudice.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 39 days
39 days — well below the median Schedule A case lifespan, suggesting rapid resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41(a)(1) filing means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice — self-executing and final
A Rule 41(a)(1) notice requires no court order and takes effect the moment it is filed. The with-prejudice designation makes the dismissal a final adjudication on the merits for these five defendants — meaning Guangdong Aoyun cannot refile the same patent claims against them in any U.S. federal court. This is a stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile.
Self-executing — no court order neededWith prejudice vs. without prejudice — a significant procedural gap
A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars the plaintiff from asserting the same claims against the same defendants again. A dismissal without prejudice preserves that right. Here, the filing explicitly states ‘with prejudice,’ foreclosing future action against these five defendants on the US11916334B1 claims. The public record does not reveal whether this reflects a negotiated resolution, a strategic concession, or inability to proceed — a distinction that matters for assessing plaintiff’s enforcement posture going forward.
Refiling permanently barredFive defendants exit with full finality and no cost order
The five named defendants obtained a with-prejudice dismissal without any recorded adverse judgment and without bearing Guangdong Aoyun’s legal costs. In Schedule A litigation, defendants who engage early — even informally — sometimes achieve exits on these terms. The absence of a fee-shifting award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 suggests no court found the case exceptional, consistent with early resolution before substantive briefing.
No costs, no judgment against defendantsEnforcement signal: plaintiff holds a live patent but retreated early
US11916334B1 remains in force. Guangdong Aoyun’s withdrawal with prejudice as to these five defendants does not diminish the patent’s validity or scope against other parties. Schedule A plaintiffs often file against dozens of sellers simultaneously; the disposition of five defendants leaves open the question of whether enforcement continued against others listed on Schedule A. Sellers in the hand warmer and portable heating device category should treat the patent as actively enforceable.
Patent remains live and enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guangdong Aoyun Technology Co Ltd. | Company | Consumer electronics manufacturer — holder of US11916334B1 (combined type hand warmer)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online sellers identified on Schedule A — typical e-commerce enforcement postureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | He Cheng | Attorney | Counsel for Guangdong Aoyun Technology Co Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Palmer Law Group, P.A. | Law Firm | Representing Guangdong Aoyun Technology Co Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Georgia N Alexakis | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1), the self-executing mechanism that requires no judicial sign-off and closes the case upon filing. The with-prejudice designation elevates this beyond a routine withdrawal — it operates as a final disposition on the merits for these five defendants, extinguishing any future claim on US11916334B1 against them. The mutual cost-bearing term and the absence of pending motions suggest the parties reached an agreed resolution, though the precise terms remain undisclosed. The patent itself is unaffected.
US11916334B1 — Combined Type Hand Warmer Device Patent
US11916334B1 is a U.S. utility patent granted to Guangdong Aoyun Technology Co Ltd. covering a combined type hand warmer — a portable consumer heating product that integrates multiple heating or functional elements into a single device form factor. The application was filed under U.S. Application No. 17/967744. The B1 designation indicates the patent issued without any post-grant amendment, suggesting the claims emerged from examination largely as filed. The portable consumer heating device market encompasses rechargeable electric hand warmers, catalytic warmers, and multi-function devices that double as power banks.
Combined-type hand warmers occupy a competitive segment of the consumer electronics accessories market, with significant sales volume on marketplace platforms such as Amazon, Wish, and AliExpress — the typical targets of Schedule A enforcement actions. For Guangdong Aoyun, holding a granted U.S. patent in this category provides meaningful leverage against competing sellers on those platforms, where IP complaints can result in product delisting. Competitors and ODM/OEM manufacturers supplying hand warmers to U.S.-facing sellers should treat this patent as a live enforcement instrument and map their product designs against its granted claims.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11916334B1?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling combined-type hand warmers — particularly multi-function devices sold on U.S. e-commerce platforms — should treat US11916334B1 as a priority FTO target. The fact that Guangdong Aoyun has already initiated enforcement in the Northern District of Illinois against multiple Schedule A defendants demonstrates active willingness to litigate. Sellers sourcing from Chinese ODMs should verify whether their specific product configurations fall within the granted claim scope before listing products for U.S. sale.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map specific hand warmer design features against the claim elements of US11916334B1 in minutes. Upload your product specification or claim chart, and Eureka will surface overlapping patent claims, identify design-around opportunities, and flag related patents in the portable heating device space. Proactive FTO analysis before a Schedule A complaint is filed is far less costly than responding to litigation after the fact.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11916334B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent cases involving consumer electronics and portable devices
Related Schedule A infringement actions asserting consumer electronics patents in the Northern District of Illinois follow recognisable patterns in filing strategy and resolution speed.
What this case signals for the consumer electronics IP enforcement landscape
Short-cycle Schedule A actions targeting e-commerce sellers are accelerating. This case illustrates the risks and leverage dynamics for both sides.
With-prejudice exits in Schedule A cases signal negotiated leverage, not weakness
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice in under 40 days, it typically suggests either a confidential settlement was reached or the plaintiff strategically withdrew to avoid adverse rulings. Either way, the underlying patent survives. Defendants in similar actions should not assume the plaintiff’s IP position is weak — this outcome may reflect deal-making, not surrender.
US11916334B1 remains a live enforcement risk for hand warmer sellers
The dismissal of claims against five defendants does not affect the patent’s enforceability against other parties. Online sellers of combined-type hand warmers — particularly those operating on marketplace platforms targeted by Schedule A complaints — should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against US11916334B1 before or during any enforcement contact.
Guangdong v Partnerships — key questions answered
Guangdong Aoyun Technology Co Ltd. filed a patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois on 10 November 2024 asserting US11916334B1 against Schedule A defendants selling combined type hand warmers. The case closed 39 days later on 19 December 2024 when Guangdong Aoyun voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice as to five defendants under Rule 41(a)(1), with each party bearing its own costs.
A dismissal with prejudice is a final disposition that permanently bars Guangdong Aoyun from re-asserting the same patent claims — based on US11916334B1 — against these five specific defendants in any future U.S. federal court proceeding. The defendants obtained this outcome without any adverse judgment entered against them and without any cost award.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal with prejudice applies only to the five named defendants in this action. US11916334B1 remains a granted, in-force U.S. patent and Guangdong Aoyun retains full enforcement rights against any other party. Sellers of combined-type hand warmers not named in this action face undiminished risk from the patent.
Schedule A cases target anonymous e-commerce sellers and are structured for rapid TRO and default judgment proceedings. Cases that close in under 40 days — like this one — typically reflect either a confidential settlement or agreement with the identified defendants, a voluntary withdrawal after defendants engaged, or a decision by the plaintiff not to pursue all defendants after initial identification. The public record in this case does not disclose which of these applied.
US11916334B1 covers a combined type hand warmer — a portable consumer heating device that integrates multiple functional or heating elements into a unified design. This product category includes rechargeable electric hand warmers and multi-function devices that combine heating with power bank functionality. The specific structural and functional claim elements of the patent define the scope of infringement risk for manufacturers and sellers in this category.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.