Guangdongsheng v. Schedule A Defendants: Metal Nibbler Design Patent Dismissed
Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting design patent USD1006076S covering a metal nibbler drill attachment against up to 54 unnamed online marketplace defendants. The case closed just 49 days after filing when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims before any defendant appeared.
Design patent assertion against 54 online sellers ends before any defence is filed
On 15 April 2025, Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd., a Chinese consumer-goods manufacturer, filed a design patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The asserted patent — USD1006076S, filed under application number 29/862020 — covers the ornamental design of a metal nibbler drill attachment, a tool accessory used for cutting sheet metal. The defendant class comprised up to 54 unnamed partnerships and unincorporated associations identified only by a sealed Schedule A, a structure typical of anti-counterfeiting and e-commerce enforcement campaigns.
On 3 June 2025, plaintiff’s counsel filed a Rule 41(a)(1) notice of voluntary dismissal, removing all causes of action against Defendants 1 through 54 without prejudice on the face of the motion. Because the basis of termination is recorded simply as ‘Voluntary dismissal’ and the motion itself explicitly invokes Rule 41(a)(1) without specifying ‘without prejudice’ in the case closure record, the public docket is silent on whether the dismissal was formally entered as with or without prejudice — a distinction with material consequences for any future re-filing.
The 49-day duration is notably short even by Schedule A litigation standards, where plaintiffs frequently resolve claims through rapid default judgments or confidential settlements before defendants formally appear. No defendant filed an answer or any responsive pleading, which is the stated basis for the Rule 41(a)(1) election. What drove resolution — whether litigation pressure, a private agreement, or a strategic withdrawal — is not discernible from the public record. The case was overseen by Judge Sara L. Ellis and litigated by The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC on behalf of the plaintiff.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 49 days
49-day lifespan — well below the median lifecycle for Schedule A patent cases in N.D. Ill.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41(a)(1) exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal: a plaintiff-controlled exit before any answer
Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because no Schedule A defendant appeared here, the plaintiff held an unilateral right to exit. The motion’s language references ‘without prejudice,’ but the official basis of termination is simply ‘Voluntary dismissal’ — leaving the formal prejudice designation ambiguous in the public record.
Plaintiff-initiated procedural exitWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims against the same defendants in future proceedings. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ extinguishes those claims permanently. The plaintiff’s motion cites ‘without prejudice,’ but the recorded basis of termination does not specify either. Until the docket is clarified or the statute of limitations runs, the plaintiff may retain the option to refile — though any re-filed action would face scrutiny as a second Rule 41 dismissal could operate as an adjudication on the merits under the ‘two-dismissal rule.’
Refiling risk remains openNo liability, no admission — but exposure may not be fully resolved
None of the 54 defendants incurred a judgment, consent order, or admission of infringement. For sellers who were identified on Schedule A, this outcome removes the immediate litigation risk. However, because the dismissal is voluntary and potentially without prejudice, defendants cannot treat this case as a final resolution of their design patent exposure under USD1006076S. Sellers continuing to list the accused metal nibbler product on online platforms remain potentially at risk of a refiled action.
No judgment, exposure persistsSchedule A campaigns signal ongoing enforcement appetite for tool accessory designs
Schedule A litigation is a well-established enforcement pattern in N.D. Illinois, particularly used by Chinese manufacturers to police copycat listings on e-commerce platforms. The rapid voluntary dismissal here — before default judgments were sought — suggests the plaintiff may have achieved off-platform or out-of-court compliance, or may be refining its defendant list. Product teams and marketplace sellers in the power-tool accessories space should treat this filing as an indicator of active IP enforcement around nibbler drill attachment designs.
E-commerce design patent riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer-goods manufacturer — holder of design patent USD1006076S (metal nibbler drill attachment)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, The | Individual | Up to 54 unnamed online marketplace sellers identified on sealed Schedule ASearch 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 ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC | Law Firm | Representing Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sara L. Ellis | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1) notice confirms that no defendant filed an answer or summary judgment motion, preserving the right to dismiss unilaterally. The motion’s explicit ‘without prejudice’ language, if accepted by the court, means the claims are extinguished procedurally but not on the merits — leaving the plaintiff free to refile subject to any applicable limitations period and the federal ‘two-dismissal rule.’ No liability or invalidity finding was made as to USD1006076S.
USD1006076S — Ornamental design for a metal nibbler drill attachment
USD1006076S is a U.S. design patent granted on the ornamental design of a metal nibbler drill attachment — a sheet-metal cutting accessory that mounts onto a standard power drill. Design patents protect the non-functional, visual characteristics of a product; the scope of protection is defined by the drawings in the patent rather than written claims. Application number 29/862020 indicates a design patent application filed with the USPTO, with the ‘D’ prefix denoting design rather than utility patent status. The metal nibbler category sits within the broader hand-held power tool accessories market, where ornamental differentiation is commercially significant for brand recognition and counterfeit prevention.
For Chinese manufacturers exporting tool accessories to U.S. e-commerce platforms, securing U.S. design patents provides a direct enforcement lever against copycat sellers who undercut on price using near-identical product aesthetics. USD1006076S gives Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei standing to pursue infringement claims in U.S. federal courts without requiring proof of functional copying — only substantial similarity in overall ornamental appearance as perceived by an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art. Competitors and marketplace sellers in the nibbler attachment space should assess whether their product designs create a different overall impression from the patented design.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD1006076S?
Any manufacturer, importer, or online seller of metal nibbler drill attachments targeting the U.S. market should treat USD1006076S as a live enforcement risk. Design patent infringement does not require copying intent — an ordinary observer test applies, and visual similarity alone can ground liability. Given this plaintiff’s demonstrated willingness to file Schedule A actions in N.D. Illinois and the potentially without-prejudice dismissal here, product teams launching or continuing to sell nibbler drill attachments should obtain an FTO opinion before or during market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD1006076S against your product’s design drawings, identify prior art that may narrow the patent’s effective scope, and flag co-pending design applications in the same product family. For marketplace sellers already listed on platforms like Amazon or eBay, Eureka can also surface any related Schedule A filings by the same plaintiff that may affect your SKUs — enabling proactive risk management before litigation is initiated.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1006076S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable design patent enforcement actions against Schedule A e-commerce defendants litigated in the Northern District of Illinois involving consumer tool accessories.
What this case signals for the power tool accessories IP landscape
A 49-day Schedule A campaign in N.D. Ill. is a data point worth tracking for any brand or seller in the tool accessories space.
Schedule A filings are enforcement signals, not just litigation events
Even a voluntarily dismissed Schedule A case represents a credible enforcement signal. The plaintiff invested in filing, sealing a defendant schedule, and engaging Chicago counsel — suggesting genuine commercial intent to protect the USD1006076S design. Sellers and distributors of metal nibbler attachments should audit their product listings for ornamental similarity to the asserted design.
No appearance by defendants does not mean the threat has passed
The absence of any defendant answer triggered the Rule 41(a)(1) right to dismiss, but the potentially without-prejudice nature of this exit means plaintiff retains optionality. Companies that were on Schedule A — or that share similar product profiles — should monitor this patent and the plaintiff’s filing history for follow-on actions in N.D. Ill. or other venues.
Guangdongsheng v Partnerships — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on 3 June 2025 under Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 49 days after filing. No defendant appeared or filed an answer. The plaintiff’s motion referenced dismissal ‘without prejudice,’ but the official basis of termination is recorded as ‘Voluntary dismissal,’ leaving the formal prejudice designation ambiguous in the public record.
The asserted patent is USD1006076S, filed under U.S. design patent application number 29/862020. It covers the ornamental design of a metal nibbler drill attachment — a sheet-metal cutting tool accessory. Design patents protect visual, non-functional characteristics, and infringement is assessed under an ordinary observer standard rather than a claim-by-claim comparison.
A Schedule A action allows a plaintiff to sue multiple unnamed defendants — typically online marketplace sellers — identified on a sealed exhibit filed with the complaint. This structure is common in N.D. Illinois e-commerce enforcement cases. Defendants are often identified by seller accounts on platforms such as Amazon or eBay rather than by legal name. The sealed schedule protects the plaintiff’s investigation and prevents defendants from transferring assets before a TRO is sought.
Potentially yes, if the dismissal was without prejudice as stated in the plaintiff’s motion. Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissals without prejudice generally permit refiling subject to any applicable statute of limitations. However, under the federal ‘two-dismissal rule,’ if the plaintiff has previously dismissed the same claim against the same defendant, a second dismissal may operate as an adjudication on the merits and bar further refiling.
The dismissal means no infringement judgment was entered and no defendant incurred liability in this case. However, because the dismissal is potentially without prejudice, the plaintiff retains the option to refile. Sellers whose products bear ornamental similarity to USD1006076S remain exposed to future enforcement. Conducting an FTO analysis against the patent’s design drawings and monitoring the plaintiff’s filing activity is advisable for any marketplace seller in this product category.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.