Peng Li v. Schedule A Defendants: Shoe Light Patent Case Closed in 30 Days
Plaintiff Peng Li filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois asserting USD992787S — a design patent covering a shoe light — against an undisclosed group of online marketplace defendants. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 30 days after filing, before any defendant retained counsel or responded on the merits.
A 30-Day Schedule A Shoe Light Patent Action Ends Before It Begins
On 25 September 2024, plaintiff Peng Li filed a design patent infringement action (Case No. 1:24-cv-08877) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings. The complaint asserted design patent USD992787S — covering the ornamental design of a shoe light — against an undisclosed group of defendants identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,’ a filing structure commonly used in mass e-commerce enforcement campaigns.
The case closed on 25 October 2024 — exactly 30 days after filing — when plaintiff’s counsel at Palmer Law Group, P.A. filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all Schedule A defendants without prejudice. Because the dismissal was filed before any defendant served an answer or motion for summary judgment, plaintiff was entitled to dismiss unilaterally as of right under Rule 41. No court order was required, no merits ruling was issued, and no costs were assessed.
The speed of resolution — 30 days from filing to dismissal — is consistent with several patterns common to Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions: early settlement or licensing negotiations conducted outside court, inability to serve defendants or identify sufficient infringing activity, or a strategic repositioning of the enforcement campaign. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the public record does not disclose whether the defendants paid any licensing fees or whether Peng Li may refile claims against the same or different defendants. The absence of defendant counsel on record throughout the proceeding is notable.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 30 days
Resolved in 30 days — well below the median district court patent case duration of 2+ years
Voluntarily dismissed: what this resolution means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. That is precisely what occurred here. No defendant had appeared or answered, so Peng Li’s counsel filed a unilateral notice — no judicial approval was required. The dismissal took effect automatically upon filing.
No court order requiredDismissed without prejudice — but silence on settlement terms
The notice explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Peng Li retains the right to refile claims covering the same shoe light design patent against the same or different defendants, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. Importantly, a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal carries no implied settlement — the public record is silent on whether any licensing payment or agreement was reached. Practitioners should not infer settlement from the filing alone.
Refiling remains possibleSchedule A defendants face no current judgment — but risk persists
Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, none of the Schedule A defendants received a final adjudication in their favour. They face no injunction, no damages award, and no fee liability from this proceeding. However, the without-prejudice nature means the same defendants could be named again. Defendants operating on e-commerce platforms should treat this dismissal as temporary relief rather than a clean bill of health.
No final adjudicationSchedule A tactics: enforcement without litigation
Cases filed against Schedule A defendants — typically anonymous online marketplace sellers — frequently resolve before any substantive proceedings. The 30-day lifecycle here is consistent with a demand-letter-and-TRO-threat enforcement model where early resolution, platform takedowns, or licensing fees are secured outside the docket. IP professionals monitoring the shoe light or broader consumer accessories space should track whether Peng Li refiles or pursues IPRS on this design.
E-commerce enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Peng Li | Individual | Individual patent holder — holder of shoe light design patent USD992787SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A, | Individual | Unnamed online marketplace sellers identified on Schedule A — no counsel enteredSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Jonathan Palmer | Attorney | Counsel for Peng LiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | He Cheng | Attorney | Counsel for Peng LiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Andrew J. Palmer | Law Firm | Representing Peng LiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Palmer Law Group, P.A. | Law Firm | Representing Peng LiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeffrey I Cummings | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly identifies the disposition as ‘without prejudice.’ This language is legally precise: the claims are extinguished for now but not on the merits, and no res judicata or issue preclusion attaches. The blanket dismissal of ‘each and every Defendant identified in Schedule A’ suggests a coordinated decision rather than settlement with individual defendants, though the record does not disclose the underlying commercial rationale.
USD992787S — Ornamental Design for a Shoe Light
USD992787S is a U.S. design patent filed under application number 29/856553, covering the ornamental appearance of a shoe light — a wearable illumination device affixed to footwear. Design patents protect aesthetic form rather than functional utility, meaning the scope of protection is defined by the visual appearance as depicted in the patent drawings. Infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa: whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design.
Shoe lights occupy a competitive niche within the wearable accessories and safety lighting market, with numerous low-cost manufacturers operating through global e-commerce platforms. The design patent’s strategic value lies primarily in enforcement against marketplace sellers who replicate the ornamental appearance of the protected product. Because USD992787S protects form rather than function, competitors can potentially design around it by altering the visual aesthetic — but the threshold for design-around in consumer accessories with limited form variation can be narrow. Any company or individual selling shoe lights with similar ornamental profiles on U.S. marketplaces should assess their exposure.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD992787S?
If your company manufactures, imports, or sells shoe lights — or visually similar wearable footwear lighting products — on U.S. e-commerce platforms, USD992787S represents a live enforcement risk. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case means no court has ruled the patent invalid or not infringed. Any seller whose product shares ornamental features with the patented design should commission a freedom-to-operate analysis to assess infringement likelihood under the ordinary observer standard and to identify prior art that could be used to challenge validity.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the visual and structural claim scope of USD992787S against your product portfolio, surface prior art design patents and publications that may support invalidity arguments, and identify related design patent families held by Peng Li or affiliated entities. Eureka’s litigation analytics overlay also surfaces pending Schedule A actions in the same product category, giving your legal and product teams early warning before an enforcement notice arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0992787S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Cases in U.S. Federal Courts
Cases matching the Schedule A enforcement model for design patents in U.S. district courts — particularly consumer accessories and e-commerce product disputes filed in Illinois.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement in e-commerce
A 30-day lifecycle and no defendant appearance is consistent with the Schedule A playbook — understand what it means for your exposure.
Without-prejudice dismissal leaves the door open for refiling
Peng Li retains the right to refile against any of the Schedule A defendants. Online sellers in the shoe accessories and wearable lighting category should audit their product listings against USD992787S and consider whether their ornamental design is sufficiently differentiated to withstand a design patent infringement claim.
Schedule A actions rarely surface in public records — monitor proactively
The anonymous defendant structure and rapid dismissal mean most Schedule A enforcement activity is invisible to competitors. Companies selling on Amazon, eBay, or Walmart Marketplace in the shoe accessories space should establish ongoing docket monitoring for design patent filings asserting similar ornamental features to USD992787S.
Li v Partnerships — key questions answered
Peng Li filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois asserting USD992787S over a shoe light product against unnamed Schedule A defendants. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after 30 days under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No merits ruling was issued and no defendants appeared on the docket.
A without-prejudice dismissal means the claims were not adjudicated on the merits and no final judgment was entered. The defendants receive no res judicata protection. Peng Li retains the right to refile infringement claims against the same defendants in a new action, subject to any applicable limitations periods. It does not confirm infringement or non-infringement.
USD992787S covers the ornamental design of a shoe light — a wearable illumination accessory affixed to footwear. As a design patent filed under application 29/856553, it protects the visual appearance of the product as depicted in the patent drawings rather than any functional features.
Schedule A actions are a common enforcement technique in U.S. federal courts where plaintiffs sue large numbers of anonymous online marketplace sellers as a group, identified only in an attached schedule. This approach is frequently used in design patent and trademark cases targeting e-commerce platforms. Courts, particularly in the Northern District of Illinois, have addressed procedural requirements around this method.
Yes. Because the dismissal was explicitly ‘without prejudice,’ Peng Li is not barred from refiling infringement claims based on USD992787S against the same Schedule A defendants or new ones, subject to the applicable statute of limitations. Note that a second voluntary dismissal of the same claims against the same parties would operate as a dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(B).
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.