Ningo Hyderon v. Minnark Group — Design Patent Dispute Dismissed Without Prejudice
Ningo Hyderon Hardware Co., Ltd. and co-plaintiff Lifeng Zhang filed a design patent infringement action against Minnark Group, LLC over furniture chair tip and leg slider products. The case, asserting design patent USD981218S, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 94 days after filing in the Central District of California.
94-day design patent exit in the furniture accessories space
On 21 November 2023, Ningo Hyderon Hardware Co., Ltd. and individual co-plaintiff Lifeng Zhang filed suit against Minnark Group, LLC in the Central District of California. The action alleged infringement of design patent USD981218S, which covers the ornamental appearance of a furniture leg tip or chair cap. The accused products — sold under the MinnARK brand as ‘Flooring Premium Chair Tips’, ‘Flexible Furniture Leg Sliders’, and ‘Premium Furniture Tips’ — were collectively characterised as the ‘MinnARK Chair Tips’ in the complaint.
The case closed on 23 February 2024 when the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the entire action without prejudice. A without-prejudice dismissal means the litigation ends without any adjudication on the merits; crucially, it does not bar Ningo Hyderon or Lifeng Zhang from refiling the same infringement claims against Minnark Group in the future, provided any applicable statute-of-limitations or procedural constraints are satisfied. No damages award, injunction, or consent judgment appears in the public record.
A 94-day lifecycle from filing to dismissal is notably short, suggesting the parties may have reached an informal commercial arrangement, or that the plaintiffs elected to withdraw after early case-management developments — the record is silent on which. The without-prejudice designation preserves the plaintiffs’ strategic optionality, which is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a decision to abandon the IP position entirely. What drove the early exit and whether any licensing terms were agreed remains unknown from publicly available filings.
Filing to voluntary dismissal in 94 days
94 days — resolved well within the median lifecycle of comparable district court patent cases
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice — what this means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal: the plaintiffs chose to exit
The plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), terminating the action on their own initiative. This is a unilateral procedural step — it does not require the defendant’s consent at this stage and carries no finding on patent validity or infringement. The court did not rule on the merits of the design patent claims.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: refiling remains an option
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means the plaintiffs are not barred from bringing the same claims again. This contrasts with a ‘with prejudice’ dismissal, which functions as a final judgment and permanently extinguishes the cause of action. The public docket records only ‘without prejudice’ — it does not specify whether a settlement was reached or what commercial terms, if any, were agreed between the parties.
Refiling not precludedUSD981218S protects ornamental appearance, not function
Design patents protect only the ornamental or aesthetic aspects of a product — not how it works. Infringement of USD981218S would be assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary purchaser, familiar with prior designs, would find the accused MinnARK Chair Tips substantially the same in overall visual impression as the patented design. This is a narrower and more visual inquiry than utility patent infringement analysis.
Ornamental design onlyEarly exit preserves plaintiff’s enforcement options
Filing and then voluntarily dismissing without prejudice is a recognised enforcement tactic: it signals IP ownership and willingness to litigate while leaving room for negotiation. If a commercial resolution was reached privately, neither party is required to disclose it. Minnark Group avoids a design-patent finding against its products, but the patent remains in force and the plaintiffs retain the ability to re-assert it.
Patent still active post-dismissalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ningo Hyderon Hardware Co., Ltd. | Company | Hardware manufacturer and design patent holder — asserting USD981218S over furniture leg tip designsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Minnark Group, LLC | Company | Minnark Group, LLC — seller of furniture floor protection accessories under the MinnARK brandSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elizabeth Yang | Attorney | Counsel for Ningo Hyderon Hardware Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Katayoun Cathy Kazemi | Attorney | Counsel for Ningo Hyderon Hardware Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott P. Shaw | Attorney | Counsel for Minnark Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | California Central District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal order records that ‘Plaintiffs Ningo Hyderon Hardware Co. Ltd and Lifeng Zhang dismiss the above captioned action in its entirety without prejudice.’ The phrase ‘in its entirety’ confirms all claims against Minnark Group were dropped — no partial claims survive. ‘Without prejudice’ is the operative legal qualifier: it means no res judicata bar attaches. The design patent USD981218S remains valid and enforceable, and the plaintiffs may refile if circumstances warrant.
USD981218S — Ornamental Design for a Furniture Leg Tip / Chair Cap
USD981218S is a United States design patent, filed under application number US29/760056, protecting the ornamental appearance of a furniture leg tip — the protective cap fitted to the base of chair and table legs to prevent floor scratching. Design patents in this category are typically granted for a specific visual configuration: the shape, profile, and surface treatment of the cap as shown in the patent drawings. The patent is held by Ningo Hyderon Hardware Co., Ltd. and co-inventor Lifeng Zhang, a structure consistent with Chinese hardware manufacturers who file design IP to protect product lines distributed into the US market.
In the competitive furniture accessories category — dominated by commodity sellers on Amazon and similar platforms — a registered design patent provides meaningful leverage. Even a narrow ornamental claim can be used to challenge visually similar competing products, particularly where the accused product targets the same consumer segment and price point. The assertion against MinnARK Chair Tips signals that USD981218S is being actively enforced, making it a material risk for any manufacturer or importer of chair tip or leg slider products with a similar visual profile.
Should your furniture leg tip product be cleared against USD981218S?
Any manufacturer, importer, or e-commerce seller of furniture floor-protection accessories — chair tips, leg caps, rubber furniture sliders — should evaluate their product’s visual design against USD981218S. The ordinary observer test used in US design patent infringement means that even a product with different functional specifications may infringe if it creates a substantially similar overall visual impression. Given the active enforcement posture evidenced by this filing, the risk is not theoretical.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD981218S against your product’s design, identify prior art that constrains the patent’s effective coverage, and flag related design filings by Ningo Hyderon and Lifeng Zhang that may pose additional exposure. Ongoing claim monitoring ensures you are alerted to any new design filings in the furniture accessories space before they become litigation risks.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0981218S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases — furniture accessories and floor protection
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the furniture accessories IP landscape
A rapid without-prejudice exit in a design patent dispute typically reflects settlement leverage — not abandoned claims.
Design patents are increasingly used as fast-strike enforcement tools
Filing a design patent suit — particularly in a consumer accessories category like chair tips — can generate rapid settlement pressure. The 94-day resolution here is consistent with this pattern: plaintiffs establish standing, defendant faces litigation cost, and the matter resolves before significant discovery spend. The without-prejudice exit preserves the IP threat.
MinnARK Chair Tips remain commercially exposed pending any licence
Because the dismissal was without prejudice and no public licence or consent judgment was filed, Minnark Group’s MinnARK Chair Tip product line remains potentially subject to renewed action under USD981218S. Companies competing in the furniture floor-protection accessories space should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk.
Ningo v Minnark — key questions answered
Ningo Hyderon Hardware Co., Ltd. and Lifeng Zhang filed a design patent infringement suit against Minnark Group, LLC in the Central District of California on 21 November 2023, asserting patent USD981218S over MinnARK Chair Tip products. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the entire action without prejudice on 23 February 2024, 94 days after filing. No merits ruling was issued.
A without-prejudice dismissal means the action ended without any court ruling on whether Minnark Group’s products infringed USD981218S. Critically, it does not bar the plaintiffs from refiling the same claims in the future. The patent remains valid and enforceable. No damages, injunction, or consent judgment was entered on the public docket.
USD981218S (application number US29/760056) is a US design patent owned by Ningo Hyderon Hardware Co., Ltd. and Lifeng Zhang. It protects the ornamental visual appearance of a furniture leg tip or chair cap — the protective rubber or plastic cover fitted to the bottom of chair and table legs. It does not protect functional aspects of the product, only its aesthetic design as depicted in the patent drawings.
The plaintiffs, Ningo Hyderon Hardware Co., Ltd. and Lifeng Zhang, were represented by Elizabeth Yang and Katayoun Cathy Kazemi of Yang Law Offices. The defendant, Minnark Group, LLC, was represented by Scott P. Shaw of Merchant & Gould PC.
The complaint accused three Minnark Group products: ‘MinnARK Flooring Premium Chair Tips’, ‘Flexible Furniture Leg Sliders’, and ‘Premium Furniture Tips, 8 pcs, Rubber, by MinnArk’. These were collectively referred to in the filing as the ‘Infringing Product’ or ‘MinnARK Chair Tips’. No court finding was made regarding whether these products actually infringed the patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.