Honeyera LLC v. Schedule A Defendants: Door Hanger Organizer Design Patent Voluntarily Dismissed
Honeyera LLC filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting design patent USD1023613S covering a door hanger organizer against a broad group of anonymous marketplace defendants. After 204 days, Honeyera voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice — leaving the door open to refile.
Schedule A design patent action ends in voluntary dismissal without prejudice
On 16 December 2024, Honeyera LLC filed a design patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-12867) before Judge Sunil R. Harjani. The complaint asserted U.S. Design Patent USD1023613S — covering the ornamental appearance of a door hanger organizer — against a group of defendants identified only as ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,’ a filing format commonly used in e-commerce platform enforcement campaigns targeting multiple anonymous online sellers simultaneously.
On 8 July 2025, Honeyera’s counsel at the Law Office of David Gulbransen filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims against all named defendants without prejudice. Because the dismissal was filed before any defendant served an answer or motion for summary judgment, no court order was required and the notice was self-executing. Critically, a dismissal without prejudice does not resolve the underlying claims on the merits — Honeyera retains the right to refile the same infringement allegations at a future date.
The 204-day lifespan of this case is broadly consistent with Schedule A enforcement actions that conclude through private settlements, failed service, or strategic withdrawal before formal litigation costs escalate. The public record does not disclose whether individual defendants were identified, served, or settled. The absence of any defendant agents or law firms on the docket suggests the matter resolved — or collapsed — before adversarial proceedings were fully joined. The precise commercial outcome for any individual Schedule A defendant therefore remains unknown from publicly available information.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 204 days
204 days from filing to voluntary dismissal — typical for Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions that resolve pre-discovery
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 notice means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): a self-executing exit before answer
FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss its own case without a court order — and without prejudice — provided no defendant has yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment. The notice is effective upon filing. No judicial approval is needed. This mechanism is commonly used in Schedule A cases to exit quickly after private resolution or when enforcement proves impractical for specific defendants.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: the public record is silent on which applies
The dismissal notice expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Honeyera is not barred from refiling the same claims. A dismissal with prejudice would permanently extinguish the claims — typically the result of a settlement with a covenant not to sue. Here, the public record does not confirm whether any defendant settled. The without-prejudice designation keeps Honeyera’s enforcement options open against any defendant not privately resolved.
Claims may be refiledNo merits ruling: defendants face continued exposure
Because the case was dismissed without prejudice and no court reached the merits, any Schedule A defendant who was not privately resolved through settlement receives no judicial declaration of non-infringement. The design patent USD1023613S remains in force. Defendants — particularly online sellers of door hanger organizer products — remain potentially exposed to a refiled action or separate enforcement campaign by Honeyera or any future assignee of the patent.
Patent remains enforceableE-commerce sellers: continued design patent risk in this category
Schedule A litigation is a well-established enforcement strategy against marketplace sellers on platforms such as Amazon, Alibaba, and Etsy. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not signal that the patent is weak or unenforceable — it more commonly reflects practical enforcement challenges or private resolution. Sellers of door hanger organizers should treat USD1023613S as an active enforcement risk and consider freedom-to-operate clearance before listing competing designs.
FTO clearance recommendedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Honeyera LLC | Company | Consumer goods IP licensor — holder of design patent USD1023613S for a door hanger organizerSearch 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 Sunil R. Harjani | 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,’ which are legally significant qualifiers. No court adjudicated the merits of the infringement claims. The without-prejudice designation means claim preclusion does not attach — Honeyera may refile the identical action. The phrasing ‘any and all claims against the following Defendants’ suggests the dismissal was targeted at named Schedule A defendants, consistent with a partial or full private resolution or tactical withdrawal.
USD1023613S — Ornamental design for a door hanger organizer
U.S. Design Patent USD1023613S (Application No. 29/835809) protects the ornamental appearance — not the functional utility — of a door hanger organizer. Design patents in the United States grant the holder exclusive rights to the specific visual characteristics of a product for a term of 15 years from grant. The patent is asserted by Honeyera LLC, suggesting the company holds or licenses design rights in consumer home organisation products. The application number prefix ’29/’ confirms this is a design patent application filed with the USPTO.
Design patents covering everyday consumer storage and organisation products have become a significant enforcement tool against e-commerce marketplace sellers, particularly those sourcing products from overseas manufacturers. USD1023613S represents a design that, if broadly drawn, could capture a range of door hanger organizer form factors sold under competing brand names. For any competitor or marketplace seller in this product category, the patent’s claim scope — defined by its drawings rather than written claims — warrants careful review before product launch or continued listing.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1023613S?
Any business manufacturing, importing, distributing, or selling door hanger organizer products — particularly through online marketplaces — should treat USD1023613S as an active clearance requirement. This case demonstrates that Honeyera is willing to pursue infringement actions against marketplace sellers, and a voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not diminish that risk. Product teams and sourcing managers introducing new door organizer SKUs should commission a freedom-to-operate review against the patent’s ornamental drawings before listing.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of USD1023613S against your product design, identify prior art that may limit the patent’s enforceability, and surface any related design patent family members that could pose a parallel risk. For IP counsel advising e-commerce clients in the home organisation category, Eureka’s docket monitoring tools can also flag new Schedule A filings by Honeyera LLC as they are published — providing early warning before service is attempted.
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 consumer home goods — Northern District of Illinois
Cases involving design patent enforcement against anonymous e-commerce sellers in the home organisation category, filed in the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent enforcement landscape
Schedule A design patent actions are a growing enforcement tool — this dismissal without prejudice illustrates both the speed and the uncertainty of that strategy.
Without-prejudice dismissals keep enforcement pressure alive for design patent holders
Honeyera retains full rights to refile against any defendant not privately settled. For marketplace sellers in the door hanger organizer category, the absence of a with-prejudice dismissal or non-infringement declaration means the legal risk is deferred, not extinguished. Sellers should not treat this case closure as a clearance signal.
Schedule A cases rarely produce public precedent — making private monitoring essential
Because Schedule A actions often resolve before any substantive court order, they generate little public litigation record. IP professionals tracking design patent enforcement in consumer home goods categories must rely on docket monitoring, not just reported decisions, to understand the true scope of enforcement activity in a given product space.
Honeyera v Partnerships — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Honeyera LLC on 8 July 2025 pursuant to FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No court adjudicated the merits of the design patent infringement claims. Honeyera retains the right to refile the same claims in the future.
Honeyera asserted U.S. Design Patent USD1023613S (Application No. 29/835809), which covers the ornamental design of a door hanger organizer. Design patents protect the visual appearance of a product, not its functional features, and are defined by the patent’s drawings.
A dismissal without prejudice means the claims were not resolved on the merits and are not permanently extinguished. Honeyera retains the legal right to refile identical infringement claims against any defendant not privately settled. Defendants should not treat the dismissal as a finding of non-infringement or a clearance of the design patent USD1023613S.
Schedule A litigation is a technique where a plaintiff files a single complaint against multiple anonymous defendants — typically online marketplace sellers — identified only in a sealed or appended list. It is used to obtain emergency relief such as temporary restraining orders and asset freezes before defendants can move assets. The Northern District of Illinois is a preferred venue for this type of action due to its established procedures for Schedule A cases.
Yes. Because the dismissal was explicitly ‘without prejudice,’ Honeyera LLC is not barred from refiling the same design patent infringement claims under USD1023613S. However, a second voluntary dismissal of the same claims against the same defendants would typically operate as a dismissal with prejudice under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1) — commonly known as the ‘two dismissal rule.’
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.