Honeyera LLC v. Schedule A Defendants: Design Patent Case Dismissed in 17 Days
Honeyera, LLC asserted U.S. design patent USD1023613S — covering an ornamental design — against a Schedule A defendant list in the Illinois Northern District Court. The case closed just 17 days after filing, when Honeyera voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
A 17-day Schedule A design patent action ends before it begins
On 4 August 2025, Honeyera, LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting infringement of U.S. design patent USD1023613S (Application No. 29/835809), which covers an ornamental design. The defendants were identified collectively as ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — a procedural device commonly used in e-commerce enforcement campaigns targeting multiple anonymous online sellers simultaneously. The case was assigned to Judge Sunil R. Harjani.
Before any defendant had filed an appearance or response, Honeyera’s counsel — David Lee Gulbransen Jr. of the Law Office of David Gulbransen — filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on 21 August 2025, invoking Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff retains the right to refile the same claims at a future date. No merits ruling, injunction, or cost award appears in the public record.
The 17-day lifecycle is notably brief even by the accelerated standards of Schedule A e-commerce litigation. The precise reason for the rapid withdrawal is not disclosed in the public record, but this pattern is consistent with early settlement or licensing discussions, identification of incorrect defendants, or a strategic decision to refile with an amended Schedule A. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the public record does not indicate whether Honeyera obtained any commercial resolution.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 17 days
17 days — exceptionally brief; median Schedule A design patent cases run 60–180 days
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 filing means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit before defendant answers
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is a procedural right requiring no judicial approval. The dismissal is automatic upon filing. Because no defendant had appeared here, Honeyera exercised this right cleanly — the court had no role in approving or denying the exit.
No court order requiredDismissed without prejudice — but the record is explicit here
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is without prejudice by default unless the notice specifies otherwise. Here, Honeyera’s filing expressly confirmed the dismissal was without prejudice. This matters: Honeyera retains the right to refile claims against the same or different defendants on USD1023613S. This is distinct from a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar refiling. The public record does not disclose any settlement or payment in connection with this dismissal.
Refiling remains possibleSchedule A defendants exit without a merits ruling — but risk persists
Because the case was dismissed without prejudice and no defendant appeared, the Schedule A sellers received no adjudication of non-infringement or invalidity of USD1023613S. They cannot rely on this dismissal as a legal shield against future enforcement. If any early settlement or licensing arrangement drove the withdrawal, those terms are private. Sellers not party to any such agreement remain exposed to a refiled action.
No invalidity ruling obtainedShort lifecycle signals enforcement pressure, not abandoned IP
The rapid 17-day arc is consistent with Schedule A enforcement campaigns where early settlements or platform takedowns render the litigation unnecessary before it gathers momentum. Patent holders in this posture often achieve commercial objectives — delisting, licensing, or deterrence — before any hearing. For e-commerce sellers operating in the ornamental design space covered by USD1023613S, this case suggests active monitoring and willingness to litigate. The patent remains valid and enforceable.
Patent remains live and enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Honeyera, LLC | Company | IP enforcement entity — holder of design patent USD1023613S covering an ornamental designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers listed collectively on Schedule A — identities undisclosed in public recordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Lee Gulbransen , Jr | Attorney | Counsel for Honeyera, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office Of David Gulbransen | Law Firm | Representing Honeyera, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sunil R. Harjani | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice recites the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) standard verbatim and explicitly states the withdrawal is ‘without prejudice.’ This phrasing is legally significant: it preserves Honeyera’s full cause of action on USD1023613S. No defendant filed an answer or summary judgment motion, so the one-dismissal rule (which would convert a second voluntary dismissal into a with-prejudice bar) has not yet been triggered. The court issued no substantive order, meaning there is no merits analysis, claim construction, or validity determination on the public record.
USD1023613S — Ornamental design patent asserted in Schedule A action
USD1023613S (filed under Application No. 29/835809) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a product rather than its functional characteristics. Design patents grant a 15-year term from grant and are infringed when an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art, would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design. The specific product category covered by this design is not fully detailed in the public litigation record beyond ‘the ornamental design.’
Design patents have become a primary enforcement tool in e-commerce contexts precisely because infringement analysis is visual rather than technical, making it faster and less expensive to assert. USD1023613S being held by an entity named Honeyera, LLC and asserted against anonymous marketplace sellers is consistent with a focused IP monetisation or brand-protection strategy. Competitors and marketplace sellers in overlapping ornamental design categories should treat this patent as an active enforcement asset.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1023613S?
Any business sourcing, manufacturing, or selling products with ornamental designs that could be visually similar to the design claimed in USD1023613S — particularly those selling on multi-seller e-commerce marketplaces — faces meaningful infringement exposure. The without-prejudice dismissal here does not extinguish the patent or limit future enforcement. Product teams launching new SKUs in adjacent design categories should commission a design patent FTO before market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map USD1023613S against existing and planned product designs, identify prior art that may support an invalidity argument, and flag prosecution history that shapes the scope of the ornamental claim. Eureka can also surface related design patent families held by Honeyera, LLC, giving product teams a complete picture of the enforcement landscape before committing to a product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1023613S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in the Northern District of Illinois
Related design patent infringement actions against Schedule A defendants filed in the Northern District of Illinois, covering comparable ornamental design enforcement patterns.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement on e-commerce platforms
Schedule A design patent actions rarely proceed to trial. Understanding the early-exit pattern is essential for online sellers and design patent holders alike.
Without-prejudice exits keep enforcement pressure permanently alive
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice is not a concession — it is a reset. Honeyera retains the full right to refile against any defendant on USD1023613S. Online sellers who assumed this case closed in their favour should treat the underlying design patent as a continued risk until they obtain a licence, an invalidity ruling, or a with-prejudice dismissal.
17-day cases suggest pre-litigation negotiation or rapid platform action
Cases that close this quickly typically suggest one of three drivers: early settlement with target defendants, successful takedown requests on e-commerce platforms, or a decision to refile with a corrected defendant schedule. IP teams monitoring competitor enforcement campaigns should track refiling activity on USD1023613S in the weeks following this dismissal.
Honeyera v Partnerships — key questions answered
Honeyera, LLC filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois on 4 August 2025, asserting USD1023613S against anonymous e-commerce sellers. On 21 August 2025 — 17 days later — Honeyera voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No merits ruling was issued.
A without-prejudice dismissal means Honeyera retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against the same or different defendants at any future time. The patent USD1023613S remains valid and enforceable. This outcome does not constitute a finding of non-infringement or invalidity — it simply closes this particular case file without adjudication.
The Northern District of Illinois is a preferred venue for Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions because it allows plaintiffs to file against multiple anonymous defendants in a single action and seek temporary restraining orders. Cases often close quickly because the plaintiff achieves its objective — platform takedowns, early licensing, or settlement — before any defendant appears, making continued litigation unnecessary.
USD1023613S (filed as Application No. 29/835809) is a U.S. design patent held by Honeyera, LLC. Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article rather than its function. The specific product category is identified in the case record only as ‘the ornamental design.’ The patent carries a 15-year term from grant and can be asserted against any product an ordinary observer would find substantially similar to the patented design.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice and no defendant has been voluntarily dismissed twice by the same plaintiff on the same claims, the Rule 41(a)(1) two-dismissal rule has not been triggered. Honeyera is legally free to refile claims against any of the Schedule A defendants. Sellers who did not reach a settlement or licence agreement with Honeyera should consider their continued exposure to USD1023613S enforcement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.