Pickuls Gizmo v. Schedule A Defendants: BLEND FREND Design Patent Dismissed
Pickuls Gizmo Ltd. filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous online marketplace sellers over USD982233S, covering the BLEND FREND product. After 70 days, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against both named defendants without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), leaving the door open to refile.
A fast-moving Schedule A design patent action ends without merits ruling
On April 30, 2025, Pickuls Gizmo Ltd. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a group of anonymous online sellers — identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A’ — alleging infringement of U.S. Design Patent USD982233S covering the BLEND FREND product. The case was assigned to Judge Georgia N. Alexakis. Counsel from Flener IP & Business Law represented the plaintiff.
The case closed on July 9, 2025, just 70 days after filing. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), Pickuls Gizmo voluntarily dismissed all causes of action against the two specifically named defendants — BICA10 Store and Shop910547142 Store — without prejudice. A Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal without prejudice does not constitute a decision on the merits and imposes no preclusive effect on the plaintiff.
The 70-day duration is consistent with Schedule A enforcement patterns where plaintiffs secure early injunctive or account-freezing relief and then resolve individual defendants through settlement or strategic withdrawal. The public record does not disclose whether any resolution was reached with the named defendants prior to dismissal, nor does it reveal whether additional Schedule A defendants remain active. The without-prejudice designation suggests Pickuls Gizmo may revisit these parties or pursue others in the same product category.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 70 days
70-day lifespan — shorter than the N.D. Illinois median for Schedule A design patent cases
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal without prejudice: what it means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) lets plaintiffs exit without a merits ruling
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without court approval before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. This produces no adjudication on the merits and triggers no preclusive effect. The case simply ceases — leaving both parties’ legal positions unchanged with respect to the patent’s validity and infringement.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice preserves Pickuls Gizmo’s right to refile
A dismissal without prejudice means Pickuls Gizmo is not barred from bringing the same claims against BICA10 Store or Shop910547142 Store again in future. This is materially different from a with-prejudice dismissal, which would extinguish those claims permanently. The public record is silent on whether any settlement or side agreement accompanied this withdrawal, which is common in Schedule A enforcement campaigns.
Refile option preservedNamed sellers face no binding judgment — but remain exposed
BICA10 Store and Shop910547142 Store received no adverse judgment and face no injunction or damages award from this proceeding. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, they cannot treat this case as a clean resolution. If any asset freeze or marketplace suspension was obtained during the case, the effect of those measures on ongoing operations would depend on separate platform enforcement actions not reflected in the court record.
No judgment enteredSchedule A tactics signal broader enforcement intent for BLEND FREND
The Schedule A filing format — targeting anonymous online sellers en masse — is a well-established enforcement strategy for consumer product design patents. A rapid voluntary dismissal without prejudice is consistent with a plaintiff that achieved its primary objective (e.g., account freeze, demand compliance) early in the litigation. Other marketplace sellers of products that may resemble the BLEND FREND design should treat this case as an active enforcement signal from Pickuls Gizmo.
Enforcement signal activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | PICKULS GIZMO LTD. | Company | Design patent holder — owner of USD982233S covering the BLEND FREND productSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified via Schedule A exhibitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Edward Judge | Attorney | Counsel for PICKULS GIZMO LTD.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ying Chen | Attorney | Counsel for PICKULS GIZMO LTD.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zareefa Burki Flener | Attorney | Counsel for PICKULS GIZMO LTD.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Flener IP & Business Law | Law Firm | Representing PICKULS GIZMO LTD.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Georgia N Alexakis | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss without court order before the defendant has answered. The explicit naming of only two defendants — BICA10 Store and Shop910547142 Store — in the dismissal notice suggests other Schedule A defendants may not have been formally served or individually identified in court filings. The without-prejudice qualifier is legally significant: it forecloses no future claim and constitutes no admission regarding patent validity or infringement scope.
USD982233S — BLEND FREND ornamental design patent
U.S. Design Patent USD982233S protects the ornamental appearance of the BLEND FREND product, owned by Pickuls Gizmo Ltd. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the visual, non-functional characteristics of a manufactured article — meaning the scope of protection is defined by the drawings in the patent, not claims describing mechanical function. The corrected application number on record is US35/513233. Design patents in this category are commonly asserted against online marketplace sellers offering visually similar consumer goods.
USD982233S is strategically positioned to police the growing market for BLEND FREND-style consumer products sold through third-party online marketplaces. The Schedule A enforcement model — filing against numerous anonymous sellers simultaneously — is well-suited to design patents where visual similarity is the primary infringement test (the ‘ordinary observer’ standard). Any competitor whose product shares the overall ornamental appearance of BLEND FREND as shown in the patent drawings faces meaningful infringement exposure, regardless of functional differences.
Should you run an FTO against USD982233S before selling BLEND FREND-adjacent products?
If your company manufactures, imports, distributes, or sells consumer products with an ornamental design similar to BLEND FREND through online marketplaces, USD982233S presents a live enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that Pickuls Gizmo and its counsel are actively using Schedule A litigation — which moves quickly and can result in marketplace account freezes before a defendant even appears in court. An FTO analysis is prudent before any market entry decision.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of USD982233S against your product drawings, identify design-around opportunities, and flag any continuation or related design applications filed by Pickuls Gizmo. Eureka can also surface prior art that may support an invalidity position if you are named in a future Schedule A action. Use the FTO agent to assess exposure before a TRO lands in your marketplace inbox.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0982233S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois targeting online marketplace sellers of consumer products.
What this case signals for consumer product design patent enforcement
Schedule A design patent campaigns are a high-velocity enforcement tool. This case illustrates how quickly they resolve — and why that speed matters.
Schedule A cases rarely reach merits — monitor for refiling risk
The 70-day lifespan and without-prejudice dismissal are hallmarks of a Schedule A campaign that achieved early leverage. Sellers in adjacent product categories should monitor USD982233S for renewed activity. PatSnap litigation alerts can flag refiling against new defendants covering similar BLEND FREND-adjacent designs.
Design patent USD982233S remains fully enforceable post-dismissal
No invalidity ruling was issued. USD982233S is unencumbered by any adverse judgment. Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling products with an ornamental design similar to BLEND FREND should conduct an FTO analysis before market entry. The patent’s enforceability is unchanged.
PICKULS v Partnerships — key questions answered
A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) means Pickuls Gizmo voluntarily ended this case against BICA10 Store and Shop910547142 Store with no adjudication on the merits. The company retains the right to refile the same infringement claims based on USD982233S against these defendants or others in future proceedings.
Yes. The dismissal was without prejudice and no invalidity or non-infringement ruling was issued. USD982233S remains a valid, enforceable design patent. Sellers of products that share the ornamental appearance of BLEND FREND as depicted in the patent drawings remain exposed to infringement claims.
A Schedule A filing names defendants collectively as anonymous ‘partnerships and unincorporated associations’ identified in a sealed or attached exhibit. This format is commonly used in N.D. Illinois to target multiple online marketplace sellers simultaneously, often seeking ex parte temporary restraining orders and asset freezes before defendants are individually notified.
Early voluntary dismissals in Schedule A design patent cases typically suggest the plaintiff achieved its primary enforcement objective — such as an account freeze, marketplace suspension, or settlement payment — without needing a full merits ruling. The public record does not confirm any settlement, but the pattern is consistent with successful early-stage leverage in Schedule A campaigns.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) as case number 1:25-cv-04727 and was assigned to Judge Georgia N. Alexakis. Plaintiff Pickuls Gizmo Ltd. was represented by Flener IP & Business Law.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.