Hairu Ma v. Schedule A Defendants: Fidget Toy Design Patent Dismissed in 17 Days
Plaintiff Hairu Ma filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting design patent USD963058S covering an anxiety relief fidget toy against a slate of anonymous Schedule A defendants. The case closed just 17 days after filing, with Hairu Ma voluntarily dismissing all claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Schedule A Fidget Toy Design Patent Suit Ends in Days
On 29 November 2024, plaintiff Hairu Ma filed a design patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-12332), asserting U.S. Design Patent USD963058S — covering the ornamental design of an anxiety relief fidget toy — against an unnamed group of defendants identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ The matter was assigned to Judge Jeremy C. Daniel. Plaintiff was represented by Allen Justin Poplin and Wangxue Deng of Avek IP LLC.
The case closed on 16 December 2024 — just 17 days after filing — when plaintiff’s counsel filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No defendant agents or law firms entered appearances on the record. The dismissal without prejudice means Hairu Ma retains the right to refile claims against any or all of the same defendants in the future, subject to applicable statute of limitations and other procedural constraints.
A 17-day lifespan is notably short even within the Schedule A docket, where early TRO proceedings often resolve matters quickly. The absence of any defendant appearance suggests the dismissal may reflect a TRO or ex parte proceeding outcome, an agreed resolution reached off-docket, or a strategic decision to refile in a different venue or against a refined defendant list. The public record does not disclose the specific reason for the withdrawal, and no settlement terms are on file.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 17 days
17 days — well below the district median for Schedule A patent actions, suggesting early resolution or strategic pivot
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to exit without court order
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because no defendant appeared here, Hairu Ma could invoke this right unilaterally. The dismissal is self-executing — no judicial approval required — and takes effect upon filing.
Unilateral procedural exitPublic record is silent on whether settlement was reached
The notice specifies dismissal ‘without prejudice,’ meaning claims are not extinguished and may be refiled. This is distinct from a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar relitigation on the merits. Whether this dismissal reflects an off-docket settlement, a strategic refile decision, or another factor is not disclosed in the public record. Practitioners should not infer a settlement or a merits concession from this filing alone.
Claims preserved for refilingSchedule A defendants face ongoing exposure
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, all named Schedule A defendants remain at risk of being sued again on the same design patent. No defendant secured a covenant not to sue or a merits ruling in their favour. Defendants who were not individually identified on the docket also lack any formal protection. The threat of re-filing preserves plaintiff’s leverage.
No immunity grantedDesign patent enforcement in e-commerce remains aggressive
Schedule A actions targeting fidget toy and novelty product sellers on online marketplaces are common in the Northern District of Illinois. A rapid voluntary dismissal without prejudice is consistent with plaintiff securing platform takedowns or off-platform settlements before formal litigation proceeds. Sellers in adjacent product categories should monitor USD963058S and related design filings for renewed enforcement.
Marketplace enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hairu Ma | Individual | Design patent holder — ornamental design of an anxiety relief fidget toy (USD963058S)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A, | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers identified on Schedule A — typical of marketplace infringement actionsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Allen Justin Poplin | Attorney | Counsel for Hairu MaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wangxue Deng | Attorney | Counsel for Hairu MaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Avek IP LLC | Law Firm | Representing Hairu MaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeremy C. Daniel | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The voluntary dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) in precise terms — ‘without prejudice’ and covering ‘any and all claims against all defendants.’ This language is comprehensive, extinguishing no claims on the merits while closing the docket. The absence of any defendant appearance or responsive pleading confirms plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss. No fee-shifting, no injunctive relief, and no consent order are recorded, leaving the underlying design patent USD963058S fully enforceable and available for future assertion.
USD963058S — Ornamental Design: Anxiety Relief Fidget Toy
U.S. Design Patent USD963058S (Application No. 29/797,945) protects the ornamental appearance of an anxiety relief fidget toy. Design patents in the United States cover the visual and aesthetic characteristics of a product rather than its functional features, providing up to 15 years of protection from grant. The application number sequence is consistent with a filing in the early 2020s, a period of significant growth in tactile and sensory toy filings driven by consumer wellness trends.
The commercial context of USD963058S sits at the intersection of the wellness products market and the highly competitive e-commerce toy sector. Schedule A enforcement — filing against large groups of anonymous online sellers simultaneously — is a recognised strategy for design patent holders whose products are frequently copied on platforms such as Amazon, Temu, and AliExpress. Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling fidget or tactile toy products with a similar ornamental profile should treat this patent as an active enforcement asset.
Should you run an FTO against USD963058S?
Any product team developing or sourcing anxiety relief fidget toys, sensory gadgets, or adjacent tactile novelty items for e-commerce should assess exposure to USD963058S before launch. Design patent infringement is assessed by the ‘ordinary observer’ test — meaning visual similarity, not functional overlap, determines risk. Because this patent has been asserted in an active enforcement campaign, the risk of being named in a future Schedule A action is non-trivial for sellers in this category.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and IP teams to map the ornamental design landscape around USD963058S, identify prior art that may limit its enforceable scope, and surface related design patent families filed by the same applicant. Eureka’s citation and family analysis can also reveal whether continuation or divisional design applications are pending — a common tactic to extend enforcement reach. Run your FTO before your product ships, not after the TRO lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0963058S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Cases in N.D. Illinois
Related Schedule A design patent infringement actions involving novelty and fidget toy products filed in the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the novelty toy design patent IP landscape
Fast-cycle Schedule A design patent suits are a proven enforcement tool — and this case illustrates both their speed and their limitations.
Schedule A suits can resolve in days — by design, not by accident
The 17-day lifecycle is consistent with a plaintiff-side strategy of filing, obtaining a TRO or platform notice, and then dismissing once the commercial objective — product delisting or settlement — is achieved. IP teams monitoring competitor enforcement activity should treat a rapid voluntary dismissal as a potential signal of success, not failure.
Without-prejudice dismissal preserves full plaintiff optionality
Hairu Ma’s decision to dismiss without prejudice keeps every legal avenue open. Defendants who believe they have reached resolution off-docket should ensure any agreement includes an explicit covenant not to sue or a with-prejudice dismissal to obtain genuine finality. Absent that, exposure to USD963058S claims continues.
Ma v Partnerships — key questions answered
Hairu Ma filed a design patent infringement suit in the Northern District of Illinois on 29 November 2024 asserting USD963058S covering an anxiety relief fidget toy against Schedule A defendants. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on 16 December 2024 — 17 days after filing — with no defendant ever appearing on the docket.
A dismissal without prejudice means Hairu Ma’s claims were not decided on the merits and can be refiled at any time within the applicable statute of limitations. Defendants received no covenant not to sue and no merits ruling in their favour. Their exposure to USD963058S infringement claims therefore remains live, and a future Schedule A action on the same patent is legally permissible.
USD963058S is a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of an anxiety relief fidget toy, filed under application number 29/797,945. Design patents protect the visual characteristics of a product — not its function — and provide up to 15 years of protection from the date of grant under 35 U.S.C. § 171.
Schedule A actions frequently name dozens or hundreds of anonymous e-commerce sellers. Plaintiffs often file for a TRO or preliminary injunction to freeze marketplace listings and payment accounts. Once that commercial leverage is obtained, plaintiffs may dismiss voluntarily after achieving takedowns or off-docket settlements. The Northern District of Illinois is a preferred venue due to its familiarity with this procedure.
Plaintiff Hairu Ma was represented by attorneys Allen Justin Poplin and Wangxue Deng of Avek IP LLC. No defendant law firm or agent entered an appearance in this matter before the voluntary dismissal was filed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.