Honeyera LLC v. Schedule A Defendants: Design Patent Infringement Dismissed
Honeyera LLC asserted design patent USD1023613S — covering a door hanger organizer — against a Schedule A roster of defendants in the Northern District of Illinois. The case resolved in 69 days when Honeyera voluntarily dismissed all claims, without any merits ruling from the court.
Design patent enforcement ends in voluntary dismissal after 69 days
Honeyera LLC, holder of design patent USD1023613S (Application No. 29/835,809) covering a door hanger organizer, filed suit on 20 May 2025 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Martha M. Pacold. The complaint named the defendants collectively as ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — a filing structure commonly used in multi-defendant e-commerce enforcement actions targeting online marketplace sellers. Plaintiff was represented by David Lee Gulbransen Jr. of the Law Office of David Gulbransen.
On 28 July 2025, Honeyera filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims against all remaining defendants without prejudice. Because dismissal was filed before any defendant served an answer or motion for summary judgment, it was self-effectuating and required no court order. The case terminated on the same date. Critically, the public record does not specify whether the dismissal was accompanied by a settlement — the distinction matters significantly for both parties and for third-party observers assessing patent exposure.
A 69-day duration from filing to voluntary dismissal is consistent with the pace of Schedule A enforcement campaigns in which plaintiffs obtain early relief — such as temporary restraining orders or asset freezes — then dismiss once defendants comply or the litigation objective is otherwise achieved. However, nothing in the public record confirms this sequence here. What remains unknown is whether any defendants were identified, whether injunctive relief was sought or granted, and whether any monetary consideration changed hands. Without those details, the enforceability of USD1023613S against the broader market remains an open question.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 69 days
69 days — faster than the median Schedule A patent case in N.D. Ill.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 notice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-executing dismissal, no court order needed
A plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. That is what occurred here. The dismissal is self-executing the moment the notice is filed. Importantly, the rule itself does not specify the terms of any underlying resolution — it only records that the plaintiff chose to end the litigation at that stage.
Procedural exit — no merits rulingHoneyera dismissed without prejudice — but the record is silent on why
A dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims against the same defendants in future. A dismissal with prejudice permanently extinguishes those claims. Here, Honeyera explicitly chose without prejudice. The public record does not disclose whether a private settlement was reached. These two scenarios have very different implications: a settlement may include licensing terms or market exit agreements; an unsettled without-prejudice dismissal leaves patent risk fully intact.
Refiling right preservedDefendants face no judgment — but underlying IP exposure remains
Because the case ended before any merits ruling, no defendant was adjudicated to have infringed or not infringed USD1023613S. Defendants receive no declaratory relief, no invalidity finding, and no license on the public record. Any defendant who was not part of a private resolution continues to face potential re-assertion of the same design patent, since Honeyera retains the right to refile.
No invalidity finding enteredDesign patent USD1023613S remains active and unlitigated on the merits
For sellers of door hanger organizers and adjacent home-organisation products on e-commerce platforms, this case signals active enforcement intent by Honeyera. The without-prejudice dismissal means the patent has not been tested in court — its scope and validity are unresolved. Competitors and marketplace sellers should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk and consider design-around or FTO analysis before launching similar organiser products.
Enforcement risk remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Honeyera LLC | Company | Design patent holder asserting USD1023613S — door hanger organizerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Schedule A online marketplace sellers, identities not publicly disclosed in docketSearch 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 Martha M. Pacold | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ terminating all claims against all remaining defendants. The phrase ‘all remaining defendants’ suggests the possibility that some defendants may have been resolved or identified separately prior to dismissal, though this is not confirmed by the public docket. No merits ruling, injunction, or damages award was entered. The patent’s validity and scope are untested, and Honeyera retains the legal right to refile the same claims.
USD1023613S — Door Hanger Organizer Ornamental Design
USD1023613S is a United States design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a door hanger organizer, filed under Application No. 29/835,809. Design patents under the USD prefix protect only the visual, non-functional aspects of a product — the specific shape, configuration, and ornamentation as shown in the patent drawings. The scope of protection is defined by the drawings themselves, with broken lines indicating unclaimed elements and solid lines indicating the protected design. Duration of a US design patent is 15 years from grant.
For the home-organisation and e-commerce accessories sector, design patents on everyday products such as door hanger organisers are increasingly used as enforcement tools against marketplace sellers producing visually similar goods. The strategic value of USD1023613S lies in its potential to block competing ornamental designs that create the same overall visual impression in the eye of an ordinary observer — the legal standard for design patent infringement established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa. Companies sourcing or selling similar products should assess this patent’s drawings carefully against their own product designs.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1023613S?
Any company designing, importing, or selling door hanger organizer products — particularly those distributed through online marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay, or Walmart.com — should assess their exposure to USD1023613S before launch or continued sale. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case means Honeyera retains all enforcement rights. The ornamental similarity test for design patents is broader than many product teams expect: it is based on overall visual impression, not feature-by-feature comparison.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can retrieve the full prosecution history for Application No. 29/835,809, map the claimed ornamental design against competing design registrations, and identify prior art that could be used to narrow or challenge the patent’s scope. R&D and sourcing teams can use Eureka to run proactive clearance searches before bringing new door hanger or home-organiser product variants to market, reducing the risk of becoming a target in a future Schedule A enforcement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1023613S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent infringement actions in the Northern District of Illinois targeting e-commerce sellers of home-organisation and consumer accessory products.
What this case signals for the home-organiser design patent IP landscape
A 69-day Schedule A enforcement action that ends without prejudice is rarely the end of the story for design patent holders in e-commerce disputes.
Schedule A filings signal systematic e-commerce enforcement, not one-off litigation
The ‘Schedule A defendants’ structure is the preferred mechanism for design patent holders targeting multiple online marketplace sellers simultaneously. A single filing can capture dozens of defendants. A swift voluntary dismissal — especially without prejudice — is often a downstream signal of TRO-driven compliance or targeted settlements, not an abandonment of enforcement strategy.
Without-prejudice dismissal keeps the patent fully live as an enforcement weapon
USD1023613S has never been adjudicated on the merits. No court has ruled on its validity or scope. For any party selling door hanger organiser products with a similar ornamental design, the patent represents an unresolved and refiling-eligible risk. An FTO clearance or design-around analysis is the appropriate response for companies with exposure in this product category.
Honeyera v Partnerships — key questions answered
It means Honeyera chose to end the litigation before any merits ruling, preserving its right to refile the same claims. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff can file this notice before any defendant answers or moves for summary judgment. No court order was required. The patent USD1023613S was never adjudicated as valid, invalid, infringed, or not infringed.
The public record does not confirm or deny a settlement. The voluntary dismissal notice filed on 28 July 2025 states only that claims are dismissed without prejudice. A private settlement agreement, if any exists, has not been made public. The distinction matters because a settlement may include licensing or market-exit terms that a bare dismissal does not.
USD1023613S is a US design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a door hanger organizer. The application number 29/835,809 is the USPTO prosecution file reference. Design patents cover visual, non-functional appearance as shown in patent drawings. The patent has not been adjudicated on its merits in any reported court decision as of the date of this case’s closure.
Schedule A filings allow a plaintiff to sue multiple anonymous or pseudonymous online marketplace sellers in a single action by listing them on a confidential schedule. This structure is common in e-commerce design patent enforcement in N.D. Illinois. It enables plaintiffs to seek ex parte TROs and asset freezes targeting platform accounts before defendants are notified, making it a powerful early-stage enforcement mechanism.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not bar refiling. Honeyera retains the right to reassert USD1023613S against any or all of the Schedule A defendants, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any private agreements that may have been reached. Defendants who were not part of any settlement should treat the patent as an active enforcement risk.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.