LOVITEDO v. Schedule A Defendants: Pet Seat Design Patent Action Dismissed
LOVITEDO, LLC filed suit in the Illinois Southern District Court asserting design patent USD955664S covering a pet center control seat against an unnamed group of online marketplace sellers. The case closed after 168 days via voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), leaving LOVITEDO free to refile.
Schedule A design patent suit ends before any merits ruling
LOVITEDO, LLC, holder of design patent USD955664S covering an ornamental pet center control seat, filed this infringement action on 25 April 2024 in the Illinois Southern District Court before Judge Martha M. Pacold. The defendants were identified only as partnerships and unincorporated associations listed in a sealed Schedule A — a filing format commonly used in e-commerce enforcement actions targeting multiple online sellers simultaneously.
The case closed on 10 October 2024 when LOVITEDO invoked Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice. A without-prejudice dismissal is a procedural exit that leaves the underlying claims legally unresolved: no court has adjudicated whether infringement occurred, and LOVITEDO retains the right to refile the same claims against the same or different defendants in a future action.
At 168 days, the timeline is consistent with Schedule A enforcement cases that resolve — or are withdrawn — before defendants formally appear and contest the action. The public record does not disclose whether LOVITEDO reached private settlements with any Schedule A defendants, obtained injunctive relief, or simply elected to close the case for strategic reasons. The absence of defendant counsel on the docket suggests many defendants may never have engaged.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 168 days
168 days — resolved faster than the median U.S. district court patent case
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41(a)(1) exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1) allows plaintiff-controlled exit at any time
Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. This is the earliest and most unilateral form of voluntary dismissal — no judicial approval is required and no merits ruling is issued.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the distinction matters, and the docket confirms it
A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff’s claims survive the dismissal — LOVITEDO can refile the same patent infringement claims against the same or new defendants in a future action. A with-prejudice dismissal would permanently bar refiling. The public record here explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ so no inference of finality should be drawn. Whether any private settlement accompanied this dismissal is not disclosed in the public docket.
Refiling right preservedSchedule A defendants face unresolved exposure
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, no Schedule A defendant received a clean release. Any seller who was named but not settled remains potentially exposed to a future refiled action asserting the same USD955664S design patent. The absence of defendant counsel on the record suggests many defendants may not have formally appeared, which is typical in Schedule A actions where default or early settlement is common.
No release issued to defendantsDesign patent enforcement via Schedule A remains an active threat vector
Schedule A litigation is a well-established enforcement strategy against e-commerce sellers of allegedly infringing consumer products. The voluntary dismissal here does not signal weakness in the patent — USD955664S remains granted and enforceable. Online sellers of pet seat or similar pet accessory products should treat this dismissal as a pause, not a resolution, and assess their exposure to the underlying design claims.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | LOVITEDO, LLC | Company | Consumer product IP holder — design patent USD955664S (pet center control seat)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Partnerships and unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A | Individual | Unnamed online marketplace sellers identified in sealed Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin John Keener | Attorney | Counsel for LOVITEDO, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Keener & Associates PC | Law Firm | Representing LOVITEDO, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Martha M. Pacold | Judge | Illinois Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1) and explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ which is the operative legal language. No court order was required and no judge assessed the merits. The verdict text contains no admission of liability, no finding of infringement or non-infringement, and no damages determination. For both parties, the legal position reverts to pre-filing status: USD955664S remains presumptively valid and enforceable, and no defendant has been adjudicated an infringer or a non-infringer.
USD955664S — ornamental design for a pet center control seat
USD955664S is a U.S. design patent granted to LOVITEDO, LLC, filed under application number US29/752375. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its functional features. The patent covers the visual design of a pet center control seat — a consumer product designed to occupy a vehicle’s center console or control area while providing a seat or perch for a pet. Design patent protection is defined entirely by the drawings in the application.
The pet accessory and automotive accessory markets both intersect with this product category, and the growth of e-commerce has made design patent enforcement against online sellers increasingly common. Because design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — whether an ordinary consumer would mistake the accused product for the patented design — even products that differ in materials or minor features can potentially infringe if the overall visual impression is substantially similar. This makes USD955664S commercially relevant to any seller offering visually similar vehicle pet seat products.
Should you run an FTO against USD955664S?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or selling pet center control seats or visually similar vehicle pet accessories should treat USD955664S as a live enforcement risk. The voluntary dismissal of this suit does not constitute a covenant not to sue, and LOVITEDO retains full rights to refile. The ordinary observer test applied in U.S. design patent infringement cases means that close visual similarity — even without copying intent — can create liability. An FTO analysis must map the patent drawings against your product’s actual visual design.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to run a structured freedom-to-operate analysis against USD955664S and related design patent families. Eureka can identify visually and technically similar granted design patents, map claim scope against your product’s ornamental features, and flag other Schedule A enforcement patterns in the pet accessory space — giving R&D and legal teams the evidence base needed to assess and document clearance decisions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0955664S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in Illinois federal courts
Explore comparable design patent infringement actions filed in Illinois federal courts against Schedule A e-commerce defendants in the consumer pet accessory and automotive accessory categories.
What this case signals for the pet accessory design IP landscape
Schedule A enforcement patterns in the N.D. and S.D. Illinois courts reveal a tactical playbook that consumer product IP holders are increasingly deploying.
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the patent risk
USD955664S remains a live, enforceable design patent. LOVITEDO’s Rule 41(a)(1) exit preserves full refiling rights. Online sellers of pet center control seats or visually similar products should not interpret this closure as confirmation of freedom to operate — a cleared FTO analysis against the design patent is still warranted.
Schedule A actions often resolve privately before defendants formally appear
The absence of defendant counsel and the rapid 168-day closure is consistent with Schedule A enforcement cases where plaintiffs extract settlements or injunctions early — sometimes via TRO-led asset freezes — before formally closing the docket. The public record is silent on any such terms here, but the pattern is commercially significant for marketplace sellers.
LOVITEDO v Partnerships — key questions answered
LOVITEDO dismissed the action under Rule 41(a)(1) without prejudice, meaning no court ruled on the merits of the infringement claim. The dismissal without prejudice preserves LOVITEDO’s right to refile the same claims based on USD955664S against the same or different defendants in the future. No defendant received a legal release.
Yes. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice has no effect on the validity or enforceability of the underlying patent. USD955664S remains a granted U.S. design patent. The dismissal of this specific lawsuit does not constitute a finding of invalidity, non-infringement, or unenforceability.
Schedule A actions are a litigation format used in U.S. federal courts — particularly in Illinois — where plaintiffs file against large numbers of online marketplace sellers whose identities are listed in a sealed schedule rather than the public complaint. This format is commonly used in IP enforcement against e-commerce infringers and often precedes applications for temporary restraining orders to freeze seller accounts.
U.S. design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa. A product infringes if an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into thinking the accused design is the same as the patented design. For USD955664S, the scope is defined by the ornamental drawings filed with application US29/752375.
Yes, with one important caveat. A first dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) does not bar refiling. However, under the ‘two-dismissal rule’ of Rule 41(a)(1)(B), a second voluntary dismissal of the same claim against the same defendant operates as an adjudication on the merits — effectively converting to a with-prejudice dismissal. LOVITEDO retains broad refiling rights at this stage.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.