Ming Jiang v. ABTKLEWVN and the Individuals and Entities Operating ABTKLEWVN
Infringement action filed 2 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and closed 27 Apr 2026, with USD1049707S asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- USD1049707S
- Application no.
- US29/938306
- Case no.
- 1:25-cv-14608
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Ill.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Illinois
- Chief judge
- Sara L. Ellis
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 2 Dec 2025 – 27 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 146 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Pillow
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Pillow
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 5 Nov 2024
- Earliest priority
- 25 Dec 2023
- Est. expiry
- 5 Nov 2039
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- JIANG, MING
- Prosecution counsel
- ipPivot IP Agency
- Examiner
- REINHOLDT, JR., S. BRYAN
Parties of record
Ming Jiang
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Huicheng Zhou · Yifeng Hao
- Firm
- Alioth Law LLP, Alioth Law P.C.
ABTKLEWVN and the Individuals and Entities Operating ABTKLEWVN
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Huicheng Zhou | Ming Jiang | Plaintiff |
| Yifeng Hao | Ming Jiang | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby gives notice that this action is voluntarily dismissed. Defendant has not served an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff notices voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B).”
Case 1:25-cv-14608 · N.D. Ill. · closed 27 April 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:25-cv-14608?
1:25-cv-14608 is a patent infringement action brought by Ming Jiang against ABTKLEWVN and the Individuals and Entities Operating ABTKLEWVN, filed on 2 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case closed on 27 April 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 1:25-cv-14608?
USD1049707S (“Pillow”), assigned to JIANG, MING, currently active. The record also lists Pillow.
How was case 1:25-cv-14608 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby gives notice that this action is voluntarily dismissed. Defendant has not served an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff notices voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B).”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 1:25-cv-14608 take?
146 calendar days, from filing on 2 Dec 2025 to closure on 27 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-14608?
Chief Judge Sara L. Ellis presided. Huicheng Zhou and Yifeng Hao are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Ming Jiang.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-14608 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.