Pingyang Hongxing v. Guangzhou Dingbao: Neck Massager Design Patent Voluntarily Dismissed
Pingyang Hongxing Craft Factory brought a design patent infringement action against Guangzhou Dingbao International Trade Co., Ltd. in the Southern District of New York over USD1080910S, a design patent covering a neck massager. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after 209 days, leaving the underlying dispute unresolved on the merits.
Design patent infringement over neck massager ends without merits ruling
Pingyang Hongxing Craft Factory, together with co-plaintiff Hao Xiao, filed this infringement action on 4 October 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, before Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil. The action asserted design patent USD1080910S (application number US29/983444), which covers the ornamental design of a neck massager, against Guangzhou Dingbao International Trade Co., Ltd., a Guangzhou-based international trade company.
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that plaintiffs Pingyang Hongxing Craft Factory and Hao Xiao filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Under that rule, a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment, and such a dismissal is without prejudice by default unless otherwise stated. No defendant agents or law firm are recorded in the available public record, which is consistent with an early-stage dismissal before the defendant formally appeared.
The case ran for 209 days before dismissal, a duration that may suggest the parties engaged in some preliminary activity — such as settlement discussions or evaluation of the defendant's commercial position — before the plaintiffs elected to withdraw. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Pingyang Hongxing and Hao Xiao retain the right to refile the claim. The specific reasons for the dismissal and whether any resolution was reached between the parties are not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 209 days
Days from filing to voluntary dismissal — approximately 7 months of active litigation
USD1080910S — ornamental design for a neck massager
Any company designing, importing, or distributing neck massager products in the U.S. market should assess freedom to operate against USD1080910S. Design patent infringement turns on whether an ordinary observer would consider the accused product's ornamental design substantially similar to the patented design — a standard that can catch products with only minor aesthetic differences. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case means the patent remains fully enforceable and the rights holder is free to pursue future actions.
Official order — verbatim text
The notice of voluntary dismissal invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), signalling that the plaintiffs exercised their unilateral right to exit before the defendant served a responsive pleading. This procedural posture means no merits ruling was issued on the design patent infringement claim under USD1080910S, and the without-prejudice designation leaves the underlying allegation legally unresolved for both parties.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff's unilateral right to exit
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order and without prejudice before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. No judicial approval is required. The dismissal takes effect upon filing of the notice. Because no defendant agents are recorded here, this exit pathway was available to the plaintiffs as of right.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: the claim can be refiled
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying claim. Pingyang Hongxing and Hao Xiao retain the right to refile their design patent infringement action against Guangzhou Dingbao, subject to any applicable statute of limitations. Whether this reflects a strategic pause, ongoing negotiations, or an assessment of forum is not disclosed in the available public record. The distinction matters: a dismissal with prejudice would bar refiling; this one does not.
Claim survives — refiling possibleGuangzhou Dingbao: no adverse judgment, but exposure remains
Guangzhou Dingbao International Trade Co., Ltd. faces no adverse judgment or injunction as a result of this dismissal. No defendant legal representation is recorded, suggesting the defendant may not have formally appeared before the action was withdrawn. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, the infringement allegation over USD1080910S has not been adjudicated and the defendant's exposure to a future action on the same patent is not eliminated.
No judgment; exposure unresolvedDesign patent enforcement in cross-border consumer goods: signals to watch
This case is consistent with a pattern of Chinese-origin design patent enforcement actions filed in U.S. courts by smaller manufacturers seeking to protect ornamental product designs in consumer electronics and wellness categories. A without-prejudice dismissal in this posture typically signals that the dispute has not been permanently resolved. Competing sellers of neck massager products should monitor USPTO records for continuation or related applications stemming from USD1080910S.
Monitor for refilingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pingyang Hongxing Craft Factory | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Guangzhou Dingbao International Trade Co., Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lance Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Pingyang Hongxing Craft FactorySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lance Liu | Law Firm | Representing Pingyang Hongxing Craft FactorySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the personal wellness device design patent space
Forward-looking patent intelligence on Pingyang Hongxing's filing activity, neck massager design trends, and competitive IP positioning in the consumer wellness sector.
Pingyang Hongxing's U.S. design patent filing activity
Pingyang Hongxing Craft Factory's decision to assert a U.S. design patent in SDNY suggests a broader strategy of protecting product aesthetics in the U.S. market. Tracking their USPTO filings — including any continuations or family patents related to US29/983444 — can reveal the breadth of their design coverage across wellness and craft product categories.
Portfolio breadth signalDesign patent filing trends in neck and shoulder massagers
The personal wellness device category — particularly neck and shoulder massagers — has seen a surge in both utility and design patent filings as DTC brands and OEM manufacturers race to differentiate form factors. Mapping filing density and assignee concentration in this space can reveal white space and crowded design zones relevant to product development teams.
Trend: rising design filingsGuangzhou Dingbao's IP position in consumer wellness trade
Guangzhou Dingbao International Trade Co., Ltd. operates as an international trade entity in the consumer goods space. Assessing whether the company holds its own design or utility patents — or relies on third-party OEM IP — is relevant for any brand considering sourcing from or competing against similar Guangzhou-based trade companies in the neck massager category.
Defendant IP exposureAdjacent design white space near USD1080910S neck massager form factor
The ornamental scope of USD1080910S is defined by its drawings. Identifying design patent white space — ornamental variations not covered by existing filings in the neck massager category — can guide R&D teams toward protectable, non-infringing product designs. This is particularly valuable for brands entering the U.S. market with new ergonomic or modular massager form factors.
Design white spaceSimilar design patent infringement cases in consumer wellness devices
Browse comparable design patent enforcement actions filed in U.S. district courts involving consumer wellness and personal care devices, including cases before the Southern District of New York.
What this case signals for the consumer wellness device IP landscape
Cross-border design patent enforcement in consumer wellness is intensifying. This case illustrates the tactical dynamics — and open questions — for both rights holders and sellers.
Without-prejudice exit preserves plaintiff's enforcement options entirely
Pingyang Hongxing retains full rights to refile against Guangzhou Dingbao or other parties on USD1080910S. Competitors and distributors of neck massager products should treat this dismissal as a pause, not a conclusion. Any party sourcing or selling substantially similar designs should conduct a design patent clearance review before re-entering the U.S. market.
No defendant appearance suggests very early-stage dynamics
The absence of any recorded defendant agents or law firm is consistent with dismissal occurring before the defendant formally responded. This pattern — common in Chinese-manufacturer-versus-Chinese-seller design patent cases in SDNY — suggests the litigation may have been used as a preliminary enforcement signal. Rights holders and accused parties in similar disputes should assess response timelines carefully.
Factory v Guangzhou — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs Pingyang Hongxing Craft Factory and Hao Xiao filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) after 209 days. No merits ruling was issued on the design patent infringement claim under USD1080910S. The specific reasons for the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record.
The asserted patent is USD1080910S, filed under application number US29/983444. It is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental design of a neck massager. Design patents cover the visual, non-functional characteristics of a product as depicted in the patent drawings.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not extinguish the underlying claim. Pingyang Hongxing and Hao Xiao retain the right to refile a design patent infringement action against Guangzhou Dingbao or other parties based on USD1080910S, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. The patent itself remains enforceable.
The case record does not disclose the plaintiffs' specific reasons for filing in SDNY. Plaintiffs asserting design patent claims against U.S.-based sellers or importers of Chinese-manufactured goods may select federal venues based on where infringing products are sold or where the defendant conducts commercial activity. The specific basis for SDNY venue in this case is not stated in the available public record.
Yes. Because the dismissal is without prejudice and no merits ruling was issued, USD1080910S remains fully enforceable. Competitors and importers of neck massager products with ornamental designs similar to those depicted in USD1080910S should conduct a design patent freedom-to-operate review. The dismissal does not constitute a finding of non-infringement or invalidity.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.