Honeyera LLC v. Schedule A Defendants: Door Hanger Organizer Design Patent Dismissed in 7 Days
Honeyera LLC filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting design patent USD1023613S covering a door hanger organizer against a wave of anonymous online marketplace defendants. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 7 days after filing — one of the shortest lifecycles in Schedule A patent litigation.
A 7-Day Schedule A Design Patent Action That Never Left the Gate
On April 4, 2025, Honeyera LLC filed a design patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, assigned to Judge John Robert Blakey. The suit targeted an anonymous group of defendants — identified only as ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule A’ — a common enforcement vehicle used against suspected counterfeiters and copycat sellers on online marketplaces. The asserted patent, USD1023613S (App. No. 29/835809), covers the ornamental design of a door hanger organizer.
Just seven days after filing, on April 11, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel David Lee Gulbransen Jr. of the Law Office of David Gulbransen filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims against all remaining defendants without prejudice. Because the notice was filed before any defendant served an answer or motion for summary judgment, dismissal was available as of right — no court order was required. The case terminated immediately upon filing of the notice.
A seven-day case lifecycle suggests the action may have served a pre-litigation purpose — such as securing a temporary restraining order, freezing marketplace listings, or prompting early settlement — rather than pursuing full merits adjudication. The public record does not disclose whether any TRO was sought or granted, whether any defendant responded, or whether any commercial resolution was reached. The without-prejudice dismissal preserves Honeyera’s ability to refile against any or all named defendants.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 7 days
Closed in 7 days — far below the median lifecycle for Schedule A design patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 notice means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court approval needed
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss its own case without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because no defendant in this Schedule A action appears to have responded, Honeyera’s notice was self-executing. The case terminated the moment the notice was docketed on April 11, 2025. No judicial findings were made on the merits.
No merits adjudicationThe public record specifies ‘without prejudice’ — but not all voluntary dismissals do
The filed notice explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Honeyera retains the right to bring a future action on the same design patent against the same or different defendants. Had the notice been silent or stated ‘with prejudice,’ the legal consequences would differ materially. Here, the public record is unambiguous: Honeyera’s infringement claims survive this dismissal and may be reasserted. Practitioners should note that a second voluntary dismissal of the same claims would operate as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(a)(1)(B).
Refiling rights preservedDefendants exit without a merits finding — but exposure may not be over
The Schedule A defendants are dismissed without any finding of infringement or non-infringement. No injunction, damages award, or consent decree was entered on the public record. However, the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means defendants cannot treat this outcome as a clean bill of health. Honeyera retains the right to refile, and marketplace platforms may have taken independent action on any TRO or DMCA-style notices filed during the 7-day window.
No infringement findingSchedule A tactics: enforcement signal or pre-settlement pressure?
Seven-day dismissals in Schedule A cases are consistent with a rapid-enforcement strategy: file suit, seek an ex parte TRO to freeze marketplace accounts and assets, then dismiss once commercial leverage is achieved or targets identified. The door hanger organizer market — dominated by low-cost online sellers — is a common target for this pattern. Design patent holders in this space should monitor USD1023613S closely; a refile or broader campaign against additional defendants remains plausible.
Rapid enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Honeyera LLC | Company | Consumer goods IP holder — asserting USD1023613S covering a door hanger organizer designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified collectively on Schedule ASearch 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 John Robert Blakey | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ which has precise legal consequences: no merits determination was reached, no estoppel attaches, and Honeyera retains full standing to refile the same infringement claims. The phrasing ‘any and all claims against all remaining Defendants’ suggests the possibility that some defendants may have been resolved or identified separately before the notice was filed — though the public docket does not confirm this.
USD1023613S — Ornamental Design for a Door Hanger Organizer
USD1023613S is a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a door hanger organizer, filed under application number 29/835809. Design patents protect the non-functional, visual characteristics of a manufactured article — in this case, the specific aesthetic configuration of a door-mounted organizer product. The patent grants Honeyera LLC the exclusive right to the claimed ornamental design, and infringement occurs when a competing product is substantially similar in appearance to an ordinary observer.
Door hanger organizers are a high-volume, low-cost consumer product category sold extensively through online marketplaces, making them frequent targets for design patent enforcement against anonymous overseas manufacturers and third-party marketplace sellers. Honeyera’s assertion of USD1023613S against Schedule A defendants is consistent with a broader trend of design patent holders using N.D. Illinois as a preferred venue for rapid, multi-defendant enforcement campaigns. Companies operating in the home organisation and storage accessories space should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk.
Should your team run an FTO against USD1023613S?
If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or sells door hanger organizers or similar door-mounted storage accessories — particularly through Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or Etsy — USD1023613S represents a direct infringement risk. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case does not reduce that risk. Product and sourcing teams should verify that their current and pipeline SKUs do not present a design that would appear substantially similar to the claimed ornamental design to an ordinary observer.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD1023613S’s ornamental claim scope, surface related design patent families held by Honeyera LLC or related entities, and identify any prior art that may inform invalidity arguments. For companies already named in Schedule A actions or at risk of being targeted, Eureka’s litigation monitoring tools flag new filings in N.D. Illinois the same day they are docketed — giving in-house teams and outside counsel a critical head start.
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 N.D. Illinois
Explore related Schedule A design patent infringement actions in the Northern District of Illinois targeting online marketplace sellers in the consumer goods and home accessories space.
What this case signals for the design patent and online marketplace IP landscape
A 7-day Schedule A filing signals calculated enforcement strategy, not an abandoned claim. The design patent remains live and actionable.
Without-prejudice dismissals in Schedule A cases are not concessions
Competitors and marketplace sellers should not read Honeyera’s dismissal as a retreat. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without-prejudice notices are frequently used to reset procedural posture, consolidate defendants, or follow up after marketplace platform enforcement has already been secured. The underlying design patent USD1023613S remains valid and enforceable.
Design patent holders in household goods face rising Schedule A filings
The Northern District of Illinois continues to be the dominant venue for Schedule A design patent enforcement. Companies selling door organizers, storage accessories, or similar consumer goods on Amazon, Etsy, or Walmart Marketplace should audit their product designs against active design patents in this category to avoid becoming a Schedule A defendant.
Honeyera v Partnerships — key questions answered
It means Honeyera filed a notice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) ending the case before any defendant answered. ‘Without prejudice’ means no merits ruling was made and Honeyera retains the right to refile the same claims against the same or different defendants in the future.
The public record available for this case does not confirm whether a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction was sought or granted during the 7-day window before dismissal. This is consistent with Schedule A cases where TRO proceedings may occur on an ex parte basis with limited public docketing.
USD1023613S is a U.S. design patent held by Honeyera LLC, filed under application number 29/835809, covering the ornamental design of a door hanger organizer. Design patents protect the visual appearance of a product, not its functional aspects. Infringement is assessed using the ‘ordinary observer’ test.
Schedule A defendants are anonymous parties — typically online marketplace sellers — identified by a sealed list rather than by name in the public complaint. This approach is common in N.D. Illinois design patent cases targeting suspected counterfeiters on platforms like Amazon or Alibaba.
Yes. Because the dismissal was explicitly without prejudice, Honeyera may refile claims based on USD1023613S against the same or different defendants. However, if Honeyera were to refile and then dismiss again voluntarily, Rule 41(a)(1)(B)’s two-dismissal rule could convert that second dismissal into a merits adjudication, barring further refiling of the same claims.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.