Hairu Ma v. Schedule A Defendants: Pen Holder Design Patent Case Voluntarily Dismissed
Plaintiff Hairu Ma brought a design patent infringement action in the Southern District of New York against dozens of e-commerce sellers — including Joybuy, Rotekt, and numerous Alibaba-linked storefronts — over USD944327S, a pen holder design. After 391 days, Ma voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own costs.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissal in a multi-defendant pen holder design patent sweep
On December 21, 2022, plaintiff Hairu Ma filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:22-cv-10784) against a wide array of individuals and entities identified on a Schedule A — a common enforcement structure targeting anonymous or pseudonymous e-commerce sellers. The single patent asserted was USD944327S (application number US29/738708), covering the ornamental design of a pen holder. Named defendants included marketplace storefronts such as Joybuy, Joybuy Express, Rotekt, TT Digital Store, Bologna58, Dacakan, Eubuy, Pongnas, and dozens of additional sellers operating across platforms consistent with AliExpress, Walmart Marketplace, and similar channels.
The case closed on January 16, 2024, when plaintiff filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all causes of action against all remaining Schedule A defendants without prejudice. The dismissal order also specified that any remaining parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees and costs. Because no defendant had filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment prior to dismissal, FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — which permits plaintiff-initiated dismissal as of right — was procedurally available and appropriately invoked.
The 391-day duration from filing to dismissal is broadly consistent with Schedule A infringement campaigns, which frequently resolve through early settlements, default judgments against non-appearing defendants, or — as here — a plaintiff-side voluntary dismissal. The public record does not disclose whether any defendants reached private settlement agreements prior to dismissal, which is a common driver of such outcomes. What remains unknown is whether Ma obtained any relief from individual defendants before filing the omnibus dismissal, and whether further enforcement action against any of the same sellers is contemplated.
Filing to resolution in 391 days
391 days from filing to voluntary dismissal — typical for pre-answer Schedule A e-commerce cases
Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — what the public record shows
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right before any answer
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss a case without a court order — and without needing defendant consent — provided no defendant has yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. That condition was met here. The plaintiff’s filing of a notice of dismissal was self-executing: no judicial approval was required, and the case closed automatically upon filing.
Plaintiff-initiated, no court order neededWithout prejudice vs. with prejudice: the public record is silent on finality
The dismissal was filed ‘without prejudice,’ meaning it does not constitute an adjudication on the merits. In principle, Ma retains the right to refile the same claims. However, the public record does not disclose whether private settlement terms were reached with any defendants before dismissal — terms that could contractually restrict refiling even absent a ‘with prejudice’ designation. Practitioners should not treat ‘without prejudice’ as confirmation that no resolution was reached.
Refiling rights technically preservedEach party bears its own costs — no fee-shifting order entered
The dismissal notice specified that any remaining parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees and costs. In U.S. patent litigation, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 requires a finding that the case is ‘exceptional.’ No such finding was made here. The own-costs outcome is standard for pre-answer voluntary dismissals and does not signal any judicial assessment of claim strength or defendant conduct.
No § 285 exceptional case findingSchedule A multi-defendant structure: a common e-commerce IP enforcement model
The Schedule A filing format — naming dozens of pseudonymous marketplace sellers as a single defendant class — is widely used in design and trademark enforcement against China-based e-commerce operators. Plaintiffs often obtain early TROs and asset freezes, then resolve claims seller-by-seller before filing an omnibus dismissal of remaining defendants. This structure makes it difficult to assess total enforcement yield from the public docket alone.
Multi-seller sweep patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hairu Ma | Company | Individual patent holder — holder of USD944327S pen holder ornamental designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto | Company | Dozens of e-commerce marketplace storefronts, many China-based, named via Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cory Jay Rosenbaum | Attorney | Counsel for Hairu MaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Arun Subramanian | Chief Judge | New York Southern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal was filed by plaintiff under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a self-executing procedural mechanism available before any defendant answer is filed. The phrasing ‘without prejudice’ preserves Ma’s formal right to refile, though the public record does not reveal whether private settlements were reached with individual defendants prior to this omnibus dismissal. The own-costs allocation is procedurally standard and carries no evaluative weight regarding claim merit or defendant conduct. No merits adjudication occurred.
USD944327S — Ornamental Design for a Pen Holder
USD944327S (application number US29/738708) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a pen holder. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the visual characteristics of an article of manufacture — not its functional features. The scope of protection is defined by the patent’s drawings, and infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ standard established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2008). The patent falls within the broader stationery and desk accessory product category, a market segment with high volume of China-based manufacturing and cross-border e-commerce activity.
Design patents in consumer product categories like stationery and desk accessories have become increasingly potent enforcement tools against marketplace sellers, particularly where product designs are visually distinctive and easily replicated at low manufacturing cost. USD944327S represents the kind of design-forward IP asset that, once asserted in a Schedule A action, can generate significant commercial leverage even without reaching trial. Competitors and marketplace sellers in the pen holder, desk organiser, and writing instrument storage space should treat this patent as an active enforcement asset regardless of the case’s voluntary dismissal outcome.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD944327S?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or selling pen holders, desk organisers, or stationery storage products for the U.S. market should consider conducting a freedom-to-operate review against USD944327S. Design patent infringement does not require copying — it requires only that an ordinary observer would find the designs substantially similar. Given that this patent was actively asserted against dozens of marketplace sellers, the risk of inadvertent design overlap is material, particularly for products sourced from or manufactured in China.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to run structured design patent clearance searches against USD944327S and related ornamental design filings in the desk accessory space. Eureka can map the visual claim scope, surface design-around alternatives, and flag pending applications in the same design family — giving product teams actionable clearance intelligence before market entry. Claim monitoring alerts can track any continuation or continuation-in-part applications filed by the same inventor.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0944327S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent infringement cases in e-commerce
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 design patent enforcement in e-commerce
Schedule A design patent campaigns against marketplace sellers continue to be an active enforcement vector — even when they end in voluntary dismissal.
Voluntary dismissal does not mean failed enforcement — outcomes are often private
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a Schedule A case after more than a year of litigation, the absence of a public judgment does not mean the campaign was unsuccessful. Individual seller settlements, asset freeze resolutions, and platform takedowns frequently occur off-docket. IP teams monitoring competitors’ enforcement activity should treat voluntary dismissals in this context as potentially resolved, not abandoned.
Design patent USD944327S covers ornamental pen holder aesthetics — scope matters for FTO
USD944327S protects the ornamental appearance of a pen holder, not its function. Design patent infringement turns on the ‘ordinary observer’ test — whether an ordinary consumer would find the accused design substantially similar. Companies selling stationery storage, desk organiser, or writing instrument holder products should audit their product designs against this patent’s figures, regardless of this case’s outcome.
Hairu v The — key questions answered
Plaintiff Hairu Ma filed a design patent infringement action in S.D.N.Y. on December 21, 2022, asserting USD944327S against dozens of e-commerce marketplace sellers. On January 16, 2024, Ma voluntarily dismissed all claims against remaining defendants without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No defendant had filed an answer or summary judgment motion. Each party bears its own costs.
A dismissal without prejudice means the case was not decided on its merits and, in principle, the plaintiff retains the right to refile the same claims. However, the public record does not disclose whether private settlement agreements were reached with individual defendants before the omnibus dismissal was filed — such agreements could independently bar refiling as a contractual matter.
USD944327S (application no. US29/738708) is a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a pen holder. Design patents protect visual aesthetics, not functionality. Infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ standard — whether a typical consumer would find the accused and patented designs substantially similar in overall appearance.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order before any defendant has filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because no defendant in this action had taken either step, Ma was entitled to file a self-executing notice of dismissal. No judicial approval was required and the case closed automatically upon filing.
Defendants were identified on a Schedule A and included named entities such as Joybuy, Joybuy Express, Rotekt, TT Digital Store, Bologna58, Dacakan, Eubuy, Pongnas, Mrooful Official Store, and dozens of additional e-commerce storefronts, many with apparent connections to China-based marketplace operations on platforms consistent with AliExpress and Walmart Marketplace.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.