Huang v. Schedule A Defendants: Brush Design Patent Action Voluntarily Dismissed
Individual inventor ZHIYONG Huang brought a design patent infringement action against more than 25 e-commerce sellers in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting USD0952355S covering a brush design. After 135 days of litigation, Huang voluntarily dismissed the action once the last remaining defendants were addressed — a pattern consistent with Schedule A marketplace enforcement campaigns.
Schedule A brush design campaign ends in voluntary dismissal
On July 2, 2024, individual inventor ZHIYONG Huang filed Case No. 1:24-cv-05569 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. The complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Design Patent USD0952355S (application number US29/780475), which covers the ornamental design of a brush, against a large group of defendants collectively identified as partnerships and unincorporated associations on Schedule A — a standard procedural mechanism used to consolidate claims against multiple anonymous or pseudonymous online marketplace sellers.
The case closed on November 14, 2024, after 135 days, when plaintiff’s counsel notified the court under FRCP 4(a)(1)(A)(i) and Court Order DE 121 that the final remaining defendants — including yujiekeji, Foni Shop, Ugrace Hair, Chomsi LLC, XUNY’s Online, Donna Titan, JQNus-US, ShineTai, Tinashe Hair, and Star Show Hair — were being dismissed. With no defendants remaining, Huang voluntarily dismissed the entire action. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
A 135-day resolution is consistent with the typical pace of Schedule A IP enforcement campaigns, where plaintiffs frequently obtain early TROs to freeze marketplace listings and defendant accounts, then resolve individual defendants through default judgments, settlements, or dismissals in sequence. The absence of any recorded final judgment, costs award, or damages figure suggests the matter resolved before substantive merits adjudication — though the specific terms negotiated with each defendant, if any, remain outside the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 135 days
135-day lifespan — typical for Schedule A design patent campaigns resolved without full merits adjudication
Voluntarily dismissed: what the termination means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal ends the action without a merits ruling
Plaintiff notified the court under FRCP 4(a)(1)(A)(i) that the last remaining defendants were dismissed, triggering voluntary dismissal of the whole action. This procedural mechanism closes the docket without any court adjudication of infringement or validity. Because the record is silent on prejudice terms, it is not possible to confirm from public filings alone whether Huang retains the right to refile against any of these defendants.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A voluntary dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would bar Huang from refiling the same claims against the same defendants. A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ would preserve that right. The basis of termination states only ‘Voluntary dismissal’ — it does not specify either form. Practitioners and affected defendants should not assume either outcome without reviewing the actual dismissal notice filed under DE 121 and any related court orders.
Prejudice status unclearSellers exit without an infringement finding on record
The named defendants — including Chengzhuan Co., NAFURNO US, FeYuMM, XINYUAN, and more than 20 additional marketplace sellers — avoided a formal infringement finding. However, any TRO-related asset freezes or marketplace injunctions entered during the litigation may have had commercial consequences independent of the final dismissal. Sellers involved in similar Schedule A actions should monitor whether refiling occurs.
No infringement findingUSD0952355S remains active and enforceable after dismissal
Voluntary dismissal does not invalidate or narrow the asserted design patent. USD0952355S retains its full scope and Huang, or any future assignee, may pursue enforcement against other sellers. E-commerce vendors offering brush products with ornamental designs similar to the patent’s claimed appearance should treat this case as a signal that the patent is actively monitored, regardless of the outcome here.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ZHIYONG Huang | Individual | Individual inventor and design patent holder — asserting USD0952355S covering brush ornamental designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | 25+ e-commerce marketplace sellers identified on Schedule A, including Chengzhuan Co., Better Life, NAFURNO US, and othersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Better Life | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Chengzhuan Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | FeYuMM | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | NAFURNO US | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others too numerous to list: erichip, Agiufgs, Qiaosheng Co., Ltd., AOWOO, AOZZY, Mseinope-jp, Lozakom, Logute, Bamfive-a, AMZ-CNMF, Homethrive, Zeeshat, BEST TO YOU, ruoying, Gyouwnll Fashionable Attire (OUTAD), Nunafey1, Orfatya, BLACKSWAN, Sinbuy-EU, Familyshopping-Choice, Luckydani | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Qirkina | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Semme-eu | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | SXZUS Official | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Weidong Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | XINYUAN | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Michael Dewitty | Attorney | Counsel for ZHIYONG HuangSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dewitty And Associates, Chtd. | Law Firm | Representing ZHIYONG HuangSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 4(a)(1)(A)(i) and Court Order DE 121, confirming the procedural basis for exit once no defendants remained. The phrasing ‘voluntarily dismisses this action’ is unqualified — no merits finding, no damages, no validity ruling is embedded. For patent practitioners, the critical unanswered question is prejudice: the absence of explicit ‘with’ or ‘without prejudice’ language in the public termination record means the enforceability posture of USD0952355S against these specific defendants remains formally ambiguous pending review of the underlying dismissal document.
USD0952355S — Ornamental Brush Design Patent (App. No. US29/780475)
USD0952355S is a U.S. design patent, filed under application number US29/780475, protecting the ornamental appearance of a brush. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the way an article looks, not how it works — infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, asking whether an ordinary consumer would mistake the accused design for the patented one. The ‘USD’ prefix confirms this is a granted design patent, distinct from a utility patent.
In the personal care accessories and consumer tools market, design patents are a primary IP lever because product functionality is often unpatentable or already in the prior art. A brush design patent of this type is particularly relevant to e-commerce sellers sourcing from overseas manufacturers, where identical or near-identical ornamental designs frequently appear across multiple storefronts. The patent’s continued enforceability post-dismissal means it represents an ongoing competitive risk for any marketplace seller whose brush product shares the claimed ornamental appearance.
Should your brush product be cleared against USD0952355S?
Any company selling, importing, or distributing brush products — personal care, household, or cosmetic — through U.S. e-commerce channels should assess their exposure to USD0952355S. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is willing to pursue enforcement actions against a broad group of marketplace sellers simultaneously. Even sellers not named in this action could face a future campaign if their product’s ornamental design falls within the ordinary observer test scope of the patent.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to run a rapid design clearance analysis against USD0952355S and related design patent families. Eureka can identify visual similarity clusters, map the claim scope under the ordinary observer standard, surface related continuation or continuation-in-part applications that could extend enforcement reach, and flag any inter partes review activity. A documented clearance opinion built on this analysis substantially strengthens a seller’s position if a Schedule A TRO application is ever filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0952355S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A brush and design patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Browse comparable Schedule A design patent enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois targeting e-commerce sellers of consumer brush and personal care accessories.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent enforcement landscape
This Schedule A action reflects a well-established enforcement playbook targeting marketplace sellers of consumer goods with design patents.
Schedule A campaigns create commercial risk before any merits ruling
The typical Schedule A enforcement sequence — filing, TRO application, asset freeze, and sequential defendant resolution — inflicts real commercial harm (frozen seller accounts, delisted products) well before any infringement is adjudicated. Marketplace sellers in the brush and personal care accessories space should audit their product designs against active design patents proactively, not reactively.
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice terms clarified leaves future risk open
Where a Schedule A plaintiff dismisses without specifying prejudice, dismissed defendants cannot safely assume the dispute is fully resolved. If the dismissal was without prejudice, the patent holder retains the ability to refile. Defendants should seek explicit confirmation of dismissal terms and consider whether the underlying design freedom-to-operate question warrants a formal clearance opinion.
Huang v Partnerships — key questions answered
USD0952355S (application number US29/780475) is a U.S. design patent asserted by ZHIYONG Huang in Case No. 1:24-cv-05569. It protects the ornamental appearance of a brush product. Design patents cover visual design, not function; infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test. The patent remains in force following the voluntary dismissal of the case.
Plaintiff ZHIYONG Huang filed a notice under FRCP 4(a)(1)(A)(i) and Court Order DE 121 dismissing the last remaining defendants, which triggered voluntary dismissal of the entire action. This is consistent with Schedule A enforcement practice, where defendants are resolved sequentially through default judgments, negotiated exits, or dismissals until none remain. The specific commercial terms, if any, are not part of the public record.
No. A voluntary dismissal is a procedural termination of the specific litigation — it carries no ruling on patent validity or enforceability. USD0952355S remains a granted design patent with full legal force. Huang or any future assignee may bring future enforcement actions against different parties or, depending on prejudice terms, potentially against the same defendants.
Schedule A is a pleading mechanism used in the Northern District of Illinois and other courts that allows a plaintiff to name a large number of anonymous or pseudonymous online marketplace sellers in a single complaint, with their identities set out in a separate schedule filed under seal or publicly. It is commonly used in design patent and trademark cases targeting overseas e-commerce sellers on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and Wish.
The public termination record does not confirm or deny whether a temporary restraining order or asset freeze was entered. Schedule A design patent cases in N.D. Illinois routinely involve early TRO applications to freeze seller accounts and marketplace listings, but this cannot be confirmed from the available case metadata. Practitioners seeking this detail should review the full docket including DE 121 and any sealed orders.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.