Kitsch, LLC vs. Schedule A Defendants: Hair Towel Design Patent Case Dismissed
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Kitsch, LLC v. Schedule A Defendants |
| Case Number | 1:25-cv-24887 (S.D. Fla.) |
| Court | Southern District of Florida |
| Duration | Oct 2025 – Jan 2026 99 days |
| Outcome | Dismissed Without Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Hair Towels sold by Schedule A Defendants |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Consumer beauty and lifestyle brand with a product portfolio including hair towels, scrunchies, and related accessories, focusing on distinctive product designs.
🛡️ Defendant
A collective of unnamed sellers operating across e-commerce platforms like Amazon, eBay, Wish, and AliExpress, targeted in a common litigation format for anonymous vendors.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on U.S. Design Patent No. USD939812S, covering the ornamental design for hair towels. Design patents protect the ornamental or aesthetic appearance of an article — not its functional attributes. Under 35 U.S.C. § 171, a valid design patent grants the holder exclusive rights to the visual design as applied to a specific product category.
- • US D939812S — Ornamental design for hair towels
Designing a similar product?
Check if your hair accessory design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The court entered a dismissal without prejudice on January 30, 2026, after a duration of just 99 days. The action was dismissed, the case closed, and all pending motions denied as moot. The order specified that the parties may move to reopen the matter upon filing a joint scheduling report, strongly implying a **settlement or resolution reached between the parties** after filing but before substantive proceedings. No damages award or injunctive relief was recorded.
Key Legal Issues
A dismissal without prejudice is not a defeat — nor is it a victory. It preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims, meaning Kitsch, LLC retains the ability to reassert its design patent infringement claims against the same or different defendants in a future action. This procedural outcome is distinctly different from a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar refiling under res judicata principles.
The absence of merits-based rulings means there is no judicial determination regarding the validity of USD939812S, infringement by the Schedule A defendants, or damages calculation. This is consistent with the enforcement-as-leverage model common in Schedule A litigation, where early pressure drives settlements.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in consumer goods design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in design patents
- Understand claim construction patterns
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Hair towel designs & soft goods
1 Patent at Issue
USD939812S
Early Resolution Strategies
Dismissal without prejudice common
✅ Key Takeaways
Design patent USD939812S (US29/669052) covers hair towel ornamental design — note for freedom-to-operate analysis in related matters.
Search related case law →Southern District of Florida remains an active, plaintiff-friendly venue for Schedule A IP enforcement.
Explore precedents →Dismissal without prejudice with reopen provision is a standard signal of pre-trial settlement in Schedule A cases.
Analyze settlement patterns →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Design Patent No. USD939812S (Application No. US29/669052), covering the ornamental design of hair towels.
The specific basis was not stated in the court order, but the language permitting reopening upon a joint scheduling report strongly suggests the parties reached a private resolution — a common outcome in Schedule A IP enforcement actions.
It reinforces that design patents are active enforcement instruments in this product category and that Schedule A litigation in Florida’s Southern District is a viable strategy for brand protection.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER — Case No. 1:25-cv-24887
- USPTO Patent Center — Design Patent USD939812S
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 171
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.