Guangdongsheng v. Schedule A Defendants: Design Patent Dispute Ends in 85 Days
Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting design patent USD1006076S over metal nibbler drill attachments against anonymous e-commerce defendants. The case closed in just 85 days via voluntary dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.
Design patent action against e-commerce sellers closed in under three months
On September 29, 2025, Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd., a Chinese consumer goods company, filed a design patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:25-cv-11818) before Judge Jorge L. Alonso. The suit asserted U.S. Design Patent USD1006076S — application number 29/862020 — which protects the ornamental design of a metal nibbler drill attachment, a tool accessory used for cutting sheet metal.
The case was terminated on December 23, 2025, when plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), naming the specific defendants from Schedule A. Dismissal with prejudice is a final resolution: the plaintiff permanently relinquishes the right to bring the same claims against those defendants again. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting no settlement payment was publicly disclosed.
At just 85 days, the duration is notably short — consistent with either a negotiated resolution reached before significant litigation costs accumulated, or a strategic decision to withdraw enforcement against specific sellers. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing arrangement, cease-and-desist compliance, or commercial agreement underpinned the dismissal. The absence of defendant counsel on record is typical of Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions where many sellers default or settle quietly.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 85 days
85 days — faster than the median N.D. Ill. patent case, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41(a)(1) filing means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice explained
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) is a plaintiff-initiated termination that permanently bars refiling the same claims against the same defendants. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice — which preserves the right to refile — this filing closes the door on future enforcement of USD1006076S against the named Schedule A defendants. The court does not adjudicate the merits; the plaintiff acts unilaterally.
Permanent bar on refilingPlaintiff permanently waives claims against named defendants
By choosing dismissal with prejudice, Guangdongsheng made a deliberate and final concession of its enforcement claims against these specific defendants. This is commercially significant: the plaintiff cannot revisit the same infringement allegations against the same parties. Whether this reflects a licensing deal, seller compliance, or a commercial decision to deprioritize enforcement is not disclosed in the public record — but the with-prejudice designation signals a concluded matter.
Claims permanently waivedNamed defendants exit free from judgment on the merits
The Schedule A defendants — typically anonymous online marketplace sellers — face no court-imposed judgment, injunction, or damages award. However, the dismissal with prejudice does not invalidate USD1006076S itself; it merely ends this specific action. Other defendants not named in this Schedule A filing remain potentially exposed to future enforcement. The lack of defendant counsel on record suggests many may have settled or ceased selling before the case concluded.
No merits adjudicationDesign patent remains enforceable against new sellers
This dismissal does not affect the validity or enforceability of USD1006076S. Guangdongsheng retains the right to assert the design patent against different defendants in future Schedule A actions. For metal nibbler drill attachment sellers operating on Amazon, eBay, or similar platforms, the patent remains an active enforcement risk. The each-party-bears-own-costs structure is consistent with a coordinated enforcement strategy rather than a fully litigated dispute.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer goods manufacturer — holder of design patent USD1006076SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers identified on Schedule A to the complaintSearch 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 Jorge L. Alonso | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Rule 41(a)(1) filing names specific defendants from Schedule A and stipulates dismissal with prejudice with each party bearing its own costs. This phrasing is precise: the with-prejudice designation forecloses any future action on these claims against these defendants, while the mutual cost provision avoids any implication of prevailing-party status. No finding on infringement, validity, or damages was made. The court did not adjudicate the merits of USD1006076S.
USD1006076S — ornamental design for a metal nibbler drill attachment
U.S. Design Patent USD1006076S, filed under application number 29/862020, protects the ornamental appearance — not the functional mechanics — of a metal nibbler drill attachment. These tools are sheet-metal cutting accessories that attach to standard power drills, enabling curved or straight cuts without deforming the material. Design patents cover the visual characteristics of a product; infringement is assessed by the ‘ordinary observer’ test, asking whether an ordinary purchaser would mistake the accused design for the patented one.
In the highly competitive e-commerce market for power tool accessories, ornamental design rights have become a meaningful enforcement lever for Chinese manufacturers seeking to protect their product aesthetics from copycat sellers on Amazon and similar platforms. USD1006076S gives Guangdongsheng a basis to pursue TROs against marketplace listings that replicate the visual design of its nibbler attachment. The relatively narrow scope of design protection — covering appearance only — means design-arounds are possible, but the enforcement threat is real for sellers of visually similar products.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1006076S?
Any manufacturer, importer, or marketplace seller offering metal nibbler drill attachments with a similar visual profile to USD1006076S faces a non-trivial enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is actively enforcing its rights in U.S. federal court. Product teams sourcing or listing nibbler attachments — particularly through Amazon, eBay, or Walmart Marketplace — should conduct a design patent clearance review before launch or continued listing.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual scope of USD1006076S against your product design, identify prior art that may bear on validity, and surface related design patent families from the same applicant. This is particularly valuable for sourcing teams evaluating Chinese-manufactured tool accessories, where design patent clusters around a product category can create systemic platform-level risk across multiple SKUs.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1006076S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases: metal tools & drill accessories
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent enforcement actions in the N.D. Ill. involving power tool accessories and Chinese IP holders.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement in e-commerce
Schedule A design patent actions against marketplace sellers follow a recognisable playbook — this case fits the pattern closely.
Schedule A filings are enforcement tools, not traditional litigation
This case is characteristic of the Schedule A enforcement model: a Chinese IP holder asserts a design patent against anonymous e-commerce sellers, typically to obtain a TRO freezing seller accounts. Quick voluntary dismissal with prejudice — often after sellers comply or settle — is the expected endpoint, not a sign of weakness in the underlying patent.
Each-party-bears-costs clause signals no public damages payment
The cost-bearing stipulation in the Rule 41(a)(1) filing suggests any resolution was structured to avoid a public record of financial settlement. IP professionals monitoring enforcement trends should note this as consistent with confidential license or compliance agreements common in marketplace enforcement campaigns.
Guangdongsheng v Partnerships — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) means Guangdongsheng permanently gave up its right to refile the same infringement claims against the named Schedule A defendants. The court made no ruling on the merits of USD1006076S. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties.
USD1006076S is a U.S. design patent filed under application number 29/862020 by Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. It protects the ornamental visual appearance of a metal nibbler drill attachment — a sheet-metal cutting tool accessory. Design patents cover aesthetic appearance, not functional features, and infringement is assessed under the ordinary observer standard.
The Northern District of Illinois is a commonly selected venue for Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions because of its established procedures for granting temporary restraining orders (TROs) to freeze marketplace seller accounts. Plaintiff’s counsel, The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC, is a known practitioner of this enforcement model in this district.
No. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice resolves the claims against specific defendants only. It carries no finding on the validity or enforceability of USD1006076S. The patent remains in force and Guangdongsheng retains the right to assert it against different defendants in future proceedings.
Schedule A defendants are typically anonymous online marketplace sellers identified by store name or account rather than legal entity name. This structure allows plaintiffs to file a single complaint against multiple unknown sellers simultaneously, obtain a TRO freezing their accounts or assets, and then identify and individually resolve claims against each seller. It is a widely used mechanism in e-commerce IP enforcement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.