Kitsch LLC v. Schedule A Defendants: Shower Caddy Design Patent Dismissed Without Prejudice
Kitsch, LLC — a consumer lifestyle brand — asserted design patent USD1025647S covering a shower caddy against a group of anonymous e-commerce defendants in the Northern District of Illinois. After 274 days, Kitsch voluntarily dismissed its claims against defendant Eesilim without prejudice, preserving the right to refile.
Kitsch’s Design Patent Enforcement Ends in Voluntary Dismissal
On 3 July 2024, Kitsch, LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-05628) alleging infringement of design patent USD1025647S, which protects the ornamental appearance of a shower caddy. The action was brought against an anonymous group of e-commerce sellers identified collectively as the ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Corporations Identified on Schedule A’ — a common enforcement mechanism targeting marketplace sellers suspected of selling infringing products.
On 3 April 2025, Kitsch filed a voluntary notice of dismissal against the specifically named defendant Eesilim, a limited company, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This rule permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning the underlying infringement claims against Eesilim remain legally viable and could be reasserted in a future action.
The 274-day duration from filing to dismissal is consistent with Schedule A cases that resolve through early settlement, default, or strategic withdrawal prior to full litigation. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement was reached with Eesilim or whether Kitsch withdrew due to identification, jurisdictional, or evidentiary challenges. The without-prejudice designation keeps Kitsch’s enforcement options open, but the absence of any recorded cost award or judgment leaves the commercial outcome opaque.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 274 days
274 days — typical for a voluntary dismissal before full Schedule A proceedings conclude
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — dismissal before defendant answers
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action as of right — without court approval — before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is the earliest and most plaintiff-friendly exit point. The filing of the notice itself closes the case; no judicial order is required. The without-prejudice qualifier means the dismissal is not a ruling on the merits and does not bar future re-filing on the same claims.
Voluntary, pre-answer dismissalWithout prejudice — but what does the public record actually say?
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would permanently bar those claims. The verdict text here expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ so Kitsch retains the option to re-assert USD1025647S against Eesilim. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement payment accompanied this dismissal or what drove the decision to withdraw at this stage.
Refiling rights preservedKitsch exits without a judgment — but keeps enforcement leverage
By dismissing without prejudice, Kitsch avoids any adverse ruling on validity or infringement of USD1025647S. The patent remains in force and its enforceability is unaffected by this dismissal. Kitsch can continue asserting the patent against other Schedule A defendants and retains the option to refile against Eesilim. The strategic rationale — settlement, identification failure, or resource allocation — is not apparent from the public record.
Patent enforceability intactEesilim faces no judgment — but litigation risk persists
Without prejudice dismissal provides Eesilim with immediate relief from this proceeding but no permanent legal protection. There is no court finding that Eesilim’s shower caddy products do not infringe USD1025647S. If Eesilim continues selling the accused product, Kitsch or another rights holder could re-initiate claims. This outcome is consistent with situations where defendants in Schedule A cases quietly withdraw the infringing listing to resolve the matter without a formal settlement on record.
No permanent bar to re-filingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kitsch, LLC | Company | Consumer lifestyle brand — holder of design patent USD1025647S covering a shower caddySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Corporations Identified on Schedule ‘A’ | Individual | Eesilim, a limited company — anonymous e-commerce seller named via Schedule A procedureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel J. Arnett | Attorney | Counsel for Kitsch, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph-John George Homsy | Attorney | Counsel for Kitsch, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kurt Brendan Drain | Attorney | Counsel for Kitsch, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark A. Cantor | Attorney | Counsel for Kitsch, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Muhammad A Siwani | Attorney | Counsel for Kitsch, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Arnett Law Group LLC | Law Firm | Representing Kitsch, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Brooks Kushman PC | Law Firm | Representing Kitsch, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Georgia N Alexakis | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly names Eesilim as the specific defendant being dismissed, which is significant in a Schedule A action involving multiple unnamed defendants. The without-prejudice designation confirms no merits adjudication occurred and preserves Kitsch’s right to refile. The precise scope of the remaining Schedule A defendant list and the status of claims against those parties is not resolved by this notice.
USD1025647S — Ornamental Design for a Shower Caddy
USD1025647S (application no. US29/892632) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a shower caddy — a bathroom storage accessory typically used to organise toiletries in a shower or bath space. Design patents in the United States protect non-functional, aesthetic features of a product and are evaluated for infringement under the ‘ordinary observer’ standard. The ‘USD’ designation confirms this is a design patent, distinct from a utility patent, and its scope is defined by the drawings rather than written claims.
Consumer product design patents like USD1025647S carry meaningful commercial leverage in the e-commerce enforcement context. The ornamental design of a shower caddy is a key purchase driver for consumers browsing online marketplaces, making design differentiation commercially valuable and legally enforceable. Kitsch’s decision to assert this patent against multiple anonymous sellers via the Schedule A procedure suggests the company views its shower caddy aesthetic as a core brand asset worth actively defending in the Northern District of Illinois.
Should you run an FTO against USD1025647S?
Any company — or individual seller — manufacturing, importing, or selling shower caddies in the United States should assess freedom to operate against USD1025647S, particularly if their product shares ornamental features with Kitsch’s patented design. This is especially relevant for e-commerce sellers listing on Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or Shopify, given Kitsch’s demonstrated willingness to pursue Schedule A enforcement in the Northern District of Illinois. A design patent FTO requires a visual comparison against the patent drawings and a prior art search to understand the patent’s enforceable scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD1025647S against your product’s ornamental features, surface prior art that may narrow the patent’s scope, and flag related design applications in Kitsch’s portfolio that could represent future enforcement risk. R&D and product teams developing new shower caddy or bathroom accessory lines should run this analysis before committing to final product aesthetics and manufacturing tooling.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1025647S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Infringement Cases: Schedule A Enforcement in N.D. Illinois
Browse related consumer product design patent Schedule A enforcement actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous e-commerce defendants.
What this case signals for the consumer goods design patent landscape
Schedule A enforcement actions against e-commerce sellers are intensifying — this case illustrates both their reach and their limits.
Design patents are potent tools against anonymous marketplace sellers
Kitsch’s use of the Schedule A mechanism — filing against an anonymous roster of e-commerce sellers — reflects a well-established enforcement model for consumer product design patents in the Northern District of Illinois. The low burden of visual comparison and the anonymity-piercing procedures available in this court make it an attractive forum for brand owners holding ornamental design rights like USD1025647S.
Without-prejudice exits preserve portfolio leverage across a defendant roster
In multi-defendant Schedule A actions, plaintiffs frequently resolve defendants individually at different speeds. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal against one defendant — here, Eesilim — does not affect claims against remaining defendants. Patent holders should track these individual resolutions carefully, as they can signal settlement patterns, defendant compliance, or enforcement prioritisation shifts across the broader action.
Kitsch v Partnerships — key questions answered
The dismissal without prejudice means Kitsch’s infringement claims against Eesilim were withdrawn without any ruling on the merits. The patent USD1025647S remains in force and fully enforceable. Kitsch retains the right to refile the same claims against Eesilim in a future action, and the patent’s validity and scope are unaffected by this procedural exit.
A Schedule A case is an enforcement mechanism where a plaintiff files suit against a group of anonymous defendants — typically e-commerce sellers — identified by pseudonymous store names rather than legal entities. The Northern District of Illinois is a preferred forum for these actions due to favourable procedural rules for obtaining early TROs, asset freezes, and third-party discovery from marketplaces. Defendants are typically identified through platform data after the case is filed.
USD1025647S is a U.S. design patent (application no. US29/892632) assigned to Kitsch, LLC. It protects the ornamental appearance — i.e., the visual design — of a shower caddy. Design patents do not protect functional features; they cover only how a product looks. Infringement is assessed by whether an ordinary observer would mistake the accused product’s appearance for the patented design.
Yes. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling. Kitsch may assert USD1025647S against Eesilim again in a new action, provided the applicable statute of limitations has not expired. Under 35 U.S.C. § 286, patent infringement claims are generally limited to acts occurring within six years before filing. The without-prejudice dismissal preserves all of Kitsch’s substantive rights.
Kitsch, LLC was represented by Daniel J. Arnett, Joseph-John George Homsy, Kurt Brendan Drain, Mark A. Cantor, and Muhammad A. Siwani. The firms of record were Arnett Law Group LLC and Brooks Kushman PC. No defence counsel appeared on the public record, which is consistent with pre-answer dismissals in Schedule A proceedings where defendants may not have been formally served.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.