Heng Zhu v. Schedule A Defendants: Animal Brush Design Patent Suit Dismissed
Plaintiff Heng Zhu filed a design patent infringement action in the Middle District of Florida asserting USD1020133S — a design patent covering an animal brush — against a group of anonymous online marketplace sellers. The case closed after 116 days when Heng Zhu filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice before any defendant answered.
Design Patent Dispute Over Animal Brush Ends Before Defendants Appear
On October 4, 2024, Heng Zhu filed suit in the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 6:24-cv-01809) alleging infringement of USD1020133S — a U.S. design patent for an animal brush, filed under application number US29/916645. The defendants are identified only as the ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations in Schedule A,’ a common placeholder used in marketplace enforcement actions targeting multiple anonymous online sellers simultaneously.
The case closed on January 28, 2025 — 116 days after filing — when Heng Zhu filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court confirmed that no defendant had filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, meaning the plaintiff had an absolute right to dismiss unilaterally without a court order. The court directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the case.
The speed of the dismissal and the absence of any defendant appearance suggests the plaintiff may have achieved its objectives through pre-litigation means — such as marketplace takedowns or informal settlements — or alternatively concluded that further litigation was not commercially warranted. The public record does not disclose the specific defendants, any settlement terms, or whether Heng Zhu intends to refile. The without-prejudice character of the dismissal preserves optionality.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 116 days
116 days — faster than the median M.D. Florida patent case disposition
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order simply by filing a notice — but only before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here, no defendant appeared, so the right was absolute. The court’s order is confirmatory, not dispositive: the dismissal took legal effect upon filing of the notice itself.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissalWithout prejudice — but what does the record actually tell us?
A without-prejudice dismissal means the plaintiff is not barred from refiling the same claims — the patent remains enforceable and the cause of action survives. However, the public record is silent on whether any private resolution was reached with the Schedule A defendants. It is not possible to determine from available filings whether this reflects a settlement, a strategic pause, or an abandonment of the enforcement campaign.
Refiling right preservedNo adjudication on the merits — defendants face continued exposure
Because the case was dismissed before any substantive ruling, no court has assessed the validity of USD1020133S or whether any defendant’s product actually infringed it. Schedule A defendants who were not privately resolved remain potentially exposed to a refiled action. The without-prejudice dismissal provides no legal protection — such as an invalidity finding — that defendants could rely on in future proceedings.
No merits shield for defendantsMarketplace seller risk: Schedule A tactics and design patent exposure
This case is consistent with a well-established enforcement pattern: design patent holders assert rights against groups of anonymous e-commerce sellers, often prompting platform takedowns or quiet settlements before any defendant formally appears. Sellers in the pet grooming accessories category should treat this case as a signal that USD1020133S remains an active enforcement asset. The absence of a with-prejudice dismissal or invalidity ruling leaves the legal landscape unchanged.
Active enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Heng Zhu | Individual | Individual design patent holder — holder of USD1020133S covering an animal brush designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified in Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified collectively in Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert DeWitty | Attorney | Counsel for Heng ZhuSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Robert DeWitty | Law Firm | Representing Heng ZhuSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms the dismissal was self-executing under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — the plaintiff’s filed notice alone terminated the action, and the court’s role was confirmatory. Critically, the order recites that no defendant filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, which is the sole statutory trigger that would have stripped the plaintiff of its unilateral dismissal right. No merits ruling was issued, no defendant’s invalidity arguments were heard, and USD1020133S remains legally unchallenged by this proceeding.
USD1020133S — Ornamental Design for an Animal Brush
USD1020133S is a U.S. design patent — filed under application number US29/916645 — protecting the ornamental appearance of an animal brush, most likely a pet grooming device. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the visual, non-functional aspects of a manufactured article. They confer the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling products whose appearance would be substantially similar to the protected design as seen through the eyes of an ordinary observer.
In the pet care accessories market, design patents on grooming tools have become an increasingly effective enforcement instrument against e-commerce sellers who replicate the visual form of a product without copying its underlying technology. USD1020133S, if broadly drafted, could cover a wide range of competing animal brush products on platforms like Amazon or Temu. For companies developing or sourcing pet grooming tools, the scope of this design patent’s claim drawings — not its title — determines the true risk perimeter.
Should you run an FTO against USD1020133S before listing animal brushes?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or reselling animal brushes — particularly those sold through online marketplaces — should assess whether their product’s ornamental appearance could be considered substantially similar to USD1020133S under the ordinary observer test. This is especially urgent for sellers on platforms that have automated suspension systems triggered by design patent complaints, where account holds can precede any legal notice.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD1020133S against your product design, identify prior art that could support an invalidity challenge, and surface related design patents held by the same applicant that may represent additional enforcement risk. For marketplace sellers, early FTO analysis is significantly cheaper than responding to a platform takedown or Schedule A lawsuit.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1020133S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Cases in M.D. Florida
Cases below involve design patent infringement actions against Schedule A marketplace defendants in M.D. Florida, covering comparable consumer goods and grooming accessories.
What this case signals for the pet accessory design patent landscape
Schedule A enforcement actions are reshaping how individual design patent holders pursue online marketplace infringers — and this case reflects the pattern.
Without-prejudice exits keep enforcement pressure alive
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice is not the end of enforcement — it is a tactical pause. Patent holders using Schedule A strategies often dismiss and refile, or use the threat of refiling as ongoing leverage. Marketplace sellers should not treat a dismissal as clearance to continue selling accused products.
Design patents on consumer goods are low-cost, high-leverage tools
USD1020133S is a design patent — covering ornamental appearance, not function. Design patents are faster to obtain, cheaper to assert, and increasingly used against e-commerce sellers whose products visually resemble a protected design. Companies sourcing or reselling pet grooming accessories should conduct proactive FTO screening before listing products.
Zhu v Partnerships — key questions answered
Heng Zhu filed a design patent infringement action in the Middle District of Florida asserting USD1020133S over an animal brush design. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after 116 days, before any defendant appeared, answered, or filed a motion for summary judgment. No merits ruling was issued.
A without-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means the patent holder retains the right to refile the same infringement claims in the future. USD1020133S was not adjudicated, invalidated, or found not infringed. The patent remains fully enforceable and the dismissed defendants remain potentially exposed to future legal action.
Schedule A defendants are groups of anonymous online sellers — typically on Amazon, eBay, or similar marketplaces — identified in a sealed exhibit rather than named in the public complaint. This approach allows plaintiffs to target multiple infringers simultaneously and often prompts platform-level enforcement actions before individual defendants even receive notice of the lawsuit.
No. USD1020133S is a U.S. design patent protecting only the ornamental, non-functional appearance of the animal brush. Infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — whether an ordinary consumer would be deceived into thinking an accused product is the same as the patented design. Functional aspects of a brush, such as bristle material or ergonomics, would require a utility patent to protect.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the plaintiff is not barred from refiling against any or all of the Schedule A defendants. However, a second voluntary dismissal against the same defendant would typically operate as a dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(B). Defendants who were not privately resolved remain exposed to renewed enforcement action.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.