Partnerships v. Zhaoyou Chen: Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed by Stipulation
A group of plaintiffs identified on Schedule A appealed to the Federal Circuit against Zhaoyou Chen over design patent USD941982S, covering a mobile air conditioning kit. The parties jointly agreed to dismiss the appeal under FRAP Rule 42(b)(1), with each side bearing its own costs — resolving the matter in just 40 days.
Federal Circuit design patent appeal ends by mutual stipulation in 40 days
Filed on 11 October 2024, Case No. 25-1049 brought a design patent infringement dispute to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The plaintiffs — a group of partnerships and unincorporated associations identified on Schedule A — appealed against defendant Zhaoyou Chen, represented by Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP. The underlying subject matter was design patent USD941982S (application no. US29/773295), protecting the ornamental appearance of a mobile air conditioning kit.
The appeal was closed on 20 November 2024, just 40 days after filing. Pursuant to FRAP Rule 42(b)(1), the Federal Circuit ordered dismissal based on the parties’ stipulated agreement. The court denied any pending motions as moot and directed each side to bear its own costs. No substantive merits ruling was issued — the appellate court made no determination on infringement, invalidity, or the scope of the design patent.
The 40-day resolution is notably brief even for a stipulated Federal Circuit dismissal, suggesting the parties reached agreement shortly after the appeal was docketed — possibly reflecting a settlement, licence, or commercial resolution reached in the interim. The public record does not disclose whether any underlying district court judgment was vacated or what commercial terms, if any, accompanied the stipulation. The basis of termination is recorded as voluntary dismissal, leaving the underlying enforceability of USD941982S unresolved by the appellate court.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 40 days
40 days — notably fast; Federal Circuit appeals typically resolve over months to years
Appeal dismissed by stipulation: what FRAP Rule 42(b)(1) means for both parties
FRAP Rule 42(b)(1): a voluntary, consent-based dismissal
FRAP Rule 42(b)(1) allows parties to dismiss an appeal by filing a signed agreement. Unlike a merits ruling, the Federal Circuit issues no opinion on the underlying patent’s validity or the alleged infringement. The order here confirms both conditions: mutual stipulation and a cost-bearing arrangement agreed between the parties. No judicial analysis of USD941982S was performed.
No merits adjudicationVoluntary dismissal: with or without prejudice?
The basis of termination is recorded as ‘voluntary dismissal’ without further specification. Under FRAP, a stipulated appellate dismissal does not automatically carry a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation in the same way as a district court Rule 41 dismissal. The public record is silent on whether the plaintiffs retain the right to re-appeal or whether any agreed terms bar future enforcement action. Parties and counsel should not assume either outcome without reviewing any underlying settlement instrument.
Prejudice status unconfirmedChen avoids an appellate merits ruling — but no invalidity finding either
For Zhaoyou Chen, the dismissal ends the immediate appellate threat without a Federal Circuit ruling on infringement. However, the absence of a merits decision means USD941982S was not invalidated or narrowed. If the dismissal reflects a settlement, any licence or covenant-not-to-sue terms will govern Chen’s future exposure — none of which are visible in the public docket.
No invalidity ruling securedDesign patent enforceability for mobile AC products remains open
Because the Federal Circuit issued no opinion, USD941982S retains whatever scope it held prior to appeal. Competitors and sellers of mobile air conditioning kits in similar ornamental design categories cannot rely on this proceeding as prior art, collateral estoppel, or a narrowing interpretation. The patent remains a live enforcement risk, and the outcome of any district-level proceedings is not resolved by this dismissal order.
Patent scope unchangedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A | Individual | Schedule A plaintiffs — asserting design patent USD941982S in a mobile AC kit infringement actionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ZHAOYOU CHEN | Individual | Zhaoyou Chen — individual defendant-appellee in Federal Circuit design patent appealSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyle Bradford Fleming | Attorney | Counsel for ZHAOYOU CHENSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for ZHAOYOU CHENSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sarah Louise Boone | Attorney | Counsel for ZHAOYOU CHENSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP | Law Firm | Representing ZHAOYOU CHENSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order recites a textbook FRAP Rule 42(b)(1) stipulated dismissal: both parties signed off, costs were allocated symmetrically, and all pending motions were mooted. The phrasing ‘each side to bear its own costs’ is notable — it reflects a negotiated rather than court-imposed cost allocation, consistent with a settlement or agreed resolution. Critically, the Federal Circuit issued no opinion on the merits of the design patent infringement claim or the validity of USD941982S. The order has no precedential value and does not alter the legal status of the underlying patent.
USD941982S — Ornamental design for a mobile air conditioning kit
USD941982S (application no. US29/773295) is a US design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a mobile air conditioning kit. Design patents cover the way a product looks — not how it functions — and are governed by 35 U.S.C. § 171. They are asserted visually, with infringement assessed by the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary purchaser would believe the accused product is the same as the patented design. Design patents are particularly prevalent in consumer electronics accessories sold through e-commerce platforms.
Design patents on portable or mobile climate-control products are frequently used in Schedule A enforcement campaigns targeting online marketplace sellers. The ornamental scope of USD941982S determines which competing products are at risk. Because no claim construction or infringement analysis was published in this appeal, the full breadth of the patent’s visual claim remains untested by the Federal Circuit. Companies sourcing, importing, or selling mobile AC kits with visually similar form factors should treat this patent as a live enforcement instrument.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD941982S?
Any business involved in designing, manufacturing, importing, or selling mobile air conditioning kits — particularly through online marketplaces — should assess exposure against USD941982S. Because this appeal ended without a merits ruling, the patent was neither invalidated nor narrowed. Product teams and procurement professionals evaluating SKUs with similar ornamental profiles face the same design-around challenge that existed before this appeal was filed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD941982S against your product designs, identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and surface related design patents in the same technology class. For Schedule A enforcement campaigns, Eureka can also identify whether the asserting party holds a broader design patent portfolio that may implicate adjacent product lines — giving IP teams a complete picture before commercialisation decisions are made.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0941982S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit design patent appeals: mobile consumer product cases
Explore related Federal Circuit appeals involving design patents on consumer electronics and portable appliance products — cases that share enforcement patterns with Case 25-1049.
What this case signals for the mobile AC design patent IP landscape
Rapid stipulated dismissals at the Federal Circuit often signal off-docket resolution. Here’s what IP teams should take away.
Stipulated Federal Circuit dismissals frequently mask underlying settlements
A 40-day appellate lifespan is consistent with parties having reached a commercial resolution — whether a licence, covenant-not-to-sue, or market exit agreement — shortly after docketing. IP professionals monitoring Schedule A enforcement campaigns should track whether the underlying district action was also resolved or remains pending.
USD941982S remains enforceable — no safe harbour created by this dismissal
The Federal Circuit’s order creates no precedent narrowing or invalidating the design patent. Importers, distributors, and online sellers of mobile air conditioning kits with similar ornamental designs should treat this patent as fully enforceable and consider whether an FTO analysis is warranted before commercialisation.
A v ZHAOYOU — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal on 20 November 2024 by stipulated dismissal under FRAP Rule 42(b)(1), just 40 days after filing. No merits ruling was issued. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. The underlying design patent USD941982S — covering a mobile air conditioning kit — was neither invalidated nor construed by the appellate court.
FRAP Rule 42(b)(1) allows both parties to jointly agree to dismiss an appeal without a court ruling on the merits. For patent cases, this means no infringement finding, no invalidity determination, and no claim construction is issued. The underlying patent retains its pre-appeal status. The dismissal is typically consistent with an out-of-court settlement or agreed resolution between the parties.
Yes. Because the Federal Circuit issued no merits ruling, USD941982S was not invalidated, narrowed, or otherwise affected by the appellate proceeding. The patent retains whatever legal status it held prior to the appeal. Competitors and sellers of visually similar mobile air conditioning products should treat the patent as fully enforceable.
Schedule A cases are a form of patent (or other IP) enforcement action where plaintiffs identify multiple anonymous defendants — typically online marketplace sellers — on a separate schedule rather than naming them individually in the caption. Case 25-1049 follows this pattern, with the plaintiff identified as ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ These cases are common in design patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers.
Zhaoyou Chen was represented by the law firm Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP, with attorneys Kyle Bradford Fleming, Mark Johnson, and Sarah Louise Boone listed as defendant agents. No plaintiff law firm or agent is identified in the public record for Case 25-1049.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.