Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei v. Schedule A Defendants — Dismissed in 9 Days
Chinese manufacturer Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. filed an infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois asserting design patent USD1006076S over a metal nibbler drill attachment, then voluntarily dismissed the entire complaint without prejudice after just 9 days — before any defendant filed an answer.
Nine-day design patent filing in the metal tools IP space
On January 29, 2024, Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd., a Chinese media and manufacturing company, filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Chief Judge Jorge L. Alonso. The action asserted design patent USD1006076S (application number US29/862020), which covers the ornamental appearance of a metal nibbler drill attachment. The defendants were identified collectively as partnerships and unincorporated associations listed on Schedule A — a enforcement format commonly used against groups of online marketplace sellers.
On February 7, 2024 — just nine days after filing — Shunhechuanmei voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice as to all defendants, invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This rule permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order at any time before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The filing confirmed that no such responsive pleading had been submitted, meaning the dismissal was procedurally straightforward and carried no judicial penalty.
A nine-day lifespan is notable even by the standards of Schedule A enforcement actions, which are themselves often short-lived. The public record does not disclose what prompted the rapid withdrawal — possibilities consistent with cases of this type include a settlement reached privately, identification errors in the Schedule A defendant list, or a tactical pause before refiling. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Shunhechuanmei retains the right to refile substantially identical claims against the same or different defendants.
Filing to voluntary dismissal in 9 days
From filing to dismissal — an unusually short litigation window
Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — without prejudice
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — Dismissal as of right
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss a complaint without a court order, and without prejudice, before any defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion. Because no defendant appeared here, Shunhechuanmei exercised this right unilaterally. The court was not required to approve or scrutinize the dismissal, and no judicial findings were made on the merits of the infringement claims.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice — but the record is silent on why
A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff may refile the same claims. A dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar refiling. The filed documents confirm this was without prejudice, but the public record does not disclose whether a private settlement was reached, whether the defendant list required revision, or whether plaintiff is pursuing a different enforcement strategy. Observers should not infer a settlement solely from the speed of dismissal — both outcomes are consistent with a 9-day voluntary withdrawal.
Refiling remains possibleSchedule A actions: bulk enforcement against online sellers
Filing against ‘Schedule A’ defendants is a well-established tactic in U.S. IP enforcement, particularly by Chinese rights holders protecting product designs sold on Amazon, eBay, or Alibaba storefronts. The approach bundles multiple unnamed defendants into a single action, often seeking a TRO to freeze seller accounts. Rapid dismissals in these cases can reflect off-docket resolutions or list corrections rather than any weakness in the underlying patent.
Common e-commerce enforcementDesign patent — ornamental appearance, not function
USD1006076S is a U.S. design patent, meaning it protects the distinctive visual appearance of the metal nibbler drill attachment rather than its mechanical function. Design patents are often easier to assert against copycat listings because infringement turns on visual similarity rather than complex claim construction. However, they are also vulnerable to invalidity challenges based on prior art, which may factor into early settlement or withdrawal decisions.
Visual design protectionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese manufacturer and media company — holder of design patent USD1006076SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Company | Unnamed Schedule A online marketplace sellers alleged to infringe the nibbler designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Depeng Bi | Attorney | Counsel for Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Konrad Val Sherinian | Attorney | Counsel for Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jorge L. Alonso | Chief Judge | Illinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal text invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly confirms no answer or summary judgment motion had been filed. This means the dismissal is purely procedural — no defendant was adjudicated, no claim was ruled upon, and no injunction or damages were awarded. For defendants, the absence of a with-prejudice designation is significant: they received no finality. For the plaintiff, the door to refiling remains open indefinitely subject to any applicable statute of limitations.
USD1006076S — Metal Nibbler Drill Attachment Design Patent
USD1006076S (application US29/862020) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a metal nibbler drill attachment — a tool that converts a standard power drill into a sheet metal cutting device. Design patents in the U.S. are granted for 15 years from grant date and cover visual appearance only, not functional features. The patent was asserted by Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd., a Chinese entity, reflecting a growing trend of Chinese manufacturers securing U.S. design IP to protect product aesthetics against copycat sellers.
In the competitive tool accessories market — particularly for products sold on Amazon and similar platforms — design patents serve as fast-acting enforcement tools. The nibbler attachment category is populated by numerous sellers offering visually similar products at commodity price points, making design differentiation and IP enforcement commercially significant. A valid design patent in this space can support TRO applications that freeze competitor accounts, making the patent strategically valuable beyond its nominal scope.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1006076S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling metal nibbler drill attachments — or visually similar sheet metal cutting accessories — in the U.S. market should assess exposure to USD1006076S. The voluntary dismissal in this case does not invalidate the patent or signal it is unenforceable. The design patent remains in force, and the rights holder has demonstrated willingness to file in U.S. federal court. Sellers active on Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or similar platforms are particularly exposed given the Schedule A enforcement model.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map USD1006076S claim scope against your product’s visual design, identify prior art that could support an invalidity challenge, and monitor for continuation or related design applications filed by Shunhechuanmei. Proactive claim monitoring ensures you receive alerts if the rights holder files divisional or continuation design patents in adjacent product categories — common in systematic enforcement programmes.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1006076S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in tool accessories — Northern District of Illinois
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 power tools accessories IP landscape
A 9-day Schedule A filing over a design patent reveals active enforcement posture — and unresolved exposure for sellers in this product category.
Design patents are being actively enforced in the accessories tools segment
This filing demonstrates that holders of design patents on tool attachments — even relatively niche products like metal nibbler drill attachments — are willing to initiate U.S. federal litigation. Sellers and distributors in this category should treat design patent exposure as a live commercial risk, not a theoretical one.
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves the threat live for all Schedule A sellers
Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, any defendant originally listed on Schedule A — and any new seller entering this product space — remains potentially exposed to a refiled action. The absence of a merits ruling means no defendant received a finding in their favour. Monitoring for continuation filings is advisable.
Guangdongsheng v The — key questions answered
Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois on January 29, 2024, asserting USD1006076S over a metal nibbler drill attachment. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice on February 7, 2024 — nine days after filing — before any defendant appeared or filed a response.
Dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff, Shunhechuanmei, retains the right to refile substantially the same infringement claims against the same or different defendants. No merits ruling was issued, no defendant was adjudicated liable, and no findings were made regarding validity or infringement of USD1006076S. The case was closed procedurally, not substantively.
USD1006076S (application US29/862020) is a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a metal nibbler drill attachment — a tool that mounts on a standard power drill to cut sheet metal. As a design patent, it protects visual appearance rather than functional mechanics, and was asserted by Chinese manufacturer Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd.
Schedule A filings allow a plaintiff to name multiple unnamed defendants — typically online marketplace sellers — in a single action without identifying each by name at the outset. This approach is commonly used in design patent and trademark enforcement against e-commerce sellers, and can support applications for TROs to freeze seller accounts. It is particularly prevalent in the Northern District of Illinois.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the plaintiff is not barred from refiling the same claims. Defendants received no formal finding in their favour. Any party originally listed on Schedule A, or new entrants selling similar products, should monitor for subsequent filings asserting USD1006076S or related design patents by Shunhechuanmei.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.