Hongying Wang v. Schedule A Defendants: Butter Knife Design Patent Dismissed
Plaintiff Hongying Wang asserted U.S. Design Patent USD774846S — covering a butter knife design — against anonymous online marketplace sellers in the Northern District of Illinois. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in just 66 days, a resolution timeline consistent with early settlement or strategic repositioning common in Schedule A enforcement actions.
Schedule A design patent action resolved in under ten weeks
On August 23, 2024, plaintiff Hongying Wang filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-07631) alleging infringement of U.S. Design Patent USD774846S, which covers the ornamental design of a butter knife. The defendants — identified only as the partnerships and unincorporated associations listed on Schedule A to the complaint — are the anonymous or pseudonymous online sellers typically targeted in this style of IP enforcement campaign.
The action concluded on October 28, 2024, when plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Notably, the dismissal notice references ‘Plaintiff Yu Chen’ rather than Hongying Wang — a discrepancy in the public record that may reflect an amended complaint substituting or adding a party, or a clerical inconsistency. Dismissal without prejudice means no merits determination was reached and the plaintiff retains the right to refile the same claims in future proceedings.
A 66-day lifespan before voluntary dismissal is consistent with several outcomes common to Schedule A litigation: early negotiated settlements with individual defendants, an inability to serve or identify specific sellers, or a strategic decision to refile in a more favorable posture. The public record does not disclose whether any monetary consideration changed hands or whether individual defendants were separately resolved. The absence of defence counsel on record suggests most defendants either defaulted, settled informally, or were never formally served.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 66 days
66-day lifespan — rapid even by Schedule A enforcement standards
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal before any defendant responds
A plaintiff may file a unilateral notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) at any time before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. No court order is required and no merits finding is made. The case simply closes. This is among the most procedurally lightweight exits available in U.S. federal litigation.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: plaintiff can refile — but public record is silent on intent
A without-prejudice dismissal preserves the plaintiff’s right to bring the same claims again. It does not imply liability, settlement, or weakness. The public record for this case does not specify whether any settlement was reached or consideration exchanged. Practitioners should not read this outcome as a concession by either side — it is structurally neutral on the merits.
Refiling rights preservedSchedule A defendants face no binding adverse ruling — for now
Because dismissal was without prejudice and no answer was filed, the Schedule A defendants carry no preclusive judgment from this proceeding. However, they remain exposed to a refiled action. In Schedule A campaigns, individual defendants who have not settled may face renewed enforcement if the plaintiff refiles, potentially with a stronger evidentiary posture.
No preclusion, ongoing exposureDesign patent enforcement via Schedule A: a rapidly evolving litigation strategy
The N.D. Illinois handles a large volume of Schedule A design patent and trademark cases targeting e-commerce sellers. A swift voluntary dismissal — especially before TRO enforcement or asset-freeze proceeds — may reflect early resolution with key defendants. Sellers in adjacent product categories (kitchen utensils, cutlery accessories) should monitor USD774846S and related design patents for re-assertion risk.
Monitor for re-assertionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hongying Wang | Individual | Design patent holder asserting ornamental rights in butter knife design — USD774846SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A, | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified on Schedule A to the complaintSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lance Y. Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Hongying WangSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lance Liu | Law Firm | Representing Hongying WangSearch 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) — a unilateral procedural exit available before any defendant answer or responsive motion. No merits finding, claim construction, or validity ruling was issued. Notably, the notice names ‘Plaintiff Yu Chen’ rather than Hongying Wang as captioned, a discrepancy that may reflect an amended pleading or filing inconsistency. The without-prejudice designation means USD774846S remains fully enforceable and the claims may be reasserted.
USD774846S — Ornamental Design for a Butter Knife
U.S. Design Patent USD774846S (application number US29/536851) protects the ornamental appearance of a butter knife. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture — in this case, the specific shape, contour, and aesthetic of the knife. Design patents typically have a 15-year term from grant and are assessed for infringement under the ‘ordinary observer’ test established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa.
In the crowded kitchen utensil and cutlery accessories market, design patents on commodity items like butter knives are primarily used to create enforcement leverage against low-cost e-commerce competitors copying a specific aesthetic. The Schedule A litigation model — asserting one design patent against dozens of anonymous online sellers simultaneously — allows rights holders to pursue broad enforcement with relatively low per-defendant cost. The commercial value of USD774846S lies less in its technical novelty than in its utility as an enforcement instrument against marketplace copycats.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD774846S?
Any manufacturer, importer, or online seller of butter knives or visually similar kitchen cutting implements should assess exposure to USD774846S before listing products on major e-commerce platforms. Design patent infringement is assessed through the eyes of an ordinary observer — meaning even products that differ functionally can infringe if they produce a substantially similar overall visual impression. Given the active enforcement history of this patent in N.D. Illinois, FTO clearance is a commercially prudent step.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD774846S against your product design, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and flag any continuation or related design applications filed by the same assignee. For Schedule A enforcement targets or potential targets, Eureka can also surface comparable dismissed and active cases to benchmark litigation risk and inform settlement strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0774846S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois
Other design patent infringement cases targeting anonymous e-commerce sellers in the Northern District of Illinois follow a structurally similar pattern to this butter knife enforcement action.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement on e-commerce platforms
Short-lived Schedule A actions often mask substantive enforcement activity. The public record rarely tells the full story.
66-day closures in Schedule A cases often reflect out-of-court resolution
When a Schedule A infringement action closes this quickly without any docket entries reflecting motion practice or hearings, the most common explanations are informal settlements with named defendants or an inability to identify and serve sellers. IP teams monitoring competitor enforcement activity should treat rapid voluntary dismissals as potential signals of ongoing licensing conversations rather than abandoned campaigns.
Without-prejudice exit preserves full re-assertion leverage for the plaintiff
USD774846S remains in force. The voluntary dismissal does not limit the patent holder’s ability to assert the same design patent against the same or different defendants. Sellers of butter knives and related cutlery items on Amazon, eBay, or Alibaba storefronts should conduct design clearance review against this patent before scaling inventory.
Wang v Partnerships — key questions answered
Plaintiff Hongying Wang filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois asserting USD774846S (butter knife ornamental design) against anonymous online sellers. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after 66 days under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with no merits determination. The dismissal notice references ‘Plaintiff Yu Chen,’ a discrepancy from the case caption.
A without-prejudice dismissal leaves USD774846S fully enforceable. The patent holder retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against the same or different defendants at any time within the applicable limitations period. No validity or infringement finding was made, so the patent’s legal status is unchanged by this dismissal.
The case caption identifies plaintiff as Hongying Wang, but the Rule 41 dismissal notice references ‘Plaintiff Yu Chen.’ This discrepancy in the public record could reflect an amended complaint that substituted or added a party, a clerical error, or a multi-plaintiff structure. Practitioners assessing standing or patent ownership should verify current assignment records at the USPTO.
Schedule A litigation is a high-volume enforcement tactic used in N.D. Illinois and other federal courts where a single plaintiff asserts IP rights against numerous anonymous online sellers identified by pseudonymous marketplace handles rather than legal names. The model allows rights holders to seek TROs and asset freezes across multiple defendants in a single filing, leveraging court process to compel platform cooperation in identifying and stopping infringing sellers.
Yes. A without-prejudice dismissal preserves the plaintiff’s enforcement rights. USD774846S remains in force and the same defendants — or new sellers with visually similar products — remain exposed to a refiled action. Sellers in kitchen utensil categories on major e-commerce platforms should review their product designs against the ornamental claim scope of USD774846S and consider FTO clearance before scaling inventory.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.