Putian Diselanke v. Changbin Xi: Neck Massager Design Patent Case Dismissed
Putian Diselanke Trading Co., Ltd. filed a declaratory judgement action against Changbin Xi in the Northern District of Illinois over design patent USD1022239S, covering a neck massager. The case was dismissed for want of prosecution — closed without any merits ruling in just 48 days.
Declaratory Judgement Ends Without Merits Ruling After 48 Days
On April 1, 2025, Putian Diselanke Trading Co., Ltd. filed a declaratory judgement complaint against individual defendant Changbin Xi in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The action centred on design patent USD1022239S (application number US29/901973), which covers the ornamental design of a neck massager. Declaratory judgement filings of this type typically signal that the plaintiff sought judicial confirmation that its product does not infringe the asserted design right, or that the patent itself is invalid.
The case closed on May 19, 2025 — just 48 days after filing — when the court dismissed it for want of prosecution. This procedural outcome means the plaintiff failed to advance the case with sufficient diligence to satisfy the court’s case management requirements. No substantive ruling on infringement, validity, or enforceability of USD1022239S was issued, leaving the underlying patent dispute legally unresolved as a matter of this proceeding.
A 48-day lifespan is exceptionally brief even for cases that terminate early. The rapid closure suggests the plaintiff may have abandoned the litigation strategy shortly after filing — possibly following a private resolution, a reassessment of litigation costs, or a change in the underlying commercial dispute. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement was reached or whether the patent holder took any action that rendered the filing moot. The absence of defendant counsel on record further complicates reconstruction of events.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 48 days
48 days — notably short; median patent case duration in N.D. Illinois exceeds 18 months
Dismissed for want of prosecution: what this outcome means for both parties
Want of prosecution: a procedural close, not a merits defeat
Dismissal for want of prosecution occurs when a plaintiff fails to move a case forward within the court’s required timeframes. The court closes the docket without ruling on the substance of any claim. This is not a finding that the declaratory judgement was meritorious or baseless — it simply means the plaintiff did not prosecute the action. The dismissal order here does not specify whether it is with or without prejudice, which carries material consequences for whether the action can be refiled.
Procedural dismissalWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Dismissed’ without specifying whether dismissal was with or without prejudice. If without prejudice, Putian Diselanke could theoretically refile a declaratory judgement action. If with prejudice, that avenue is foreclosed. Courts differ in how they characterise want-of-prosecution dismissals, and until the underlying order is reviewed, neither party can assume finality. Practitioners should obtain the full dismissal order before advising on refiling strategy.
Prejudice status unclearChangbin Xi’s patent survives — but validity was never tested
Because the case was dismissed on procedural grounds, USD1022239S was never subjected to a judicial validity or enforceability analysis in this proceeding. Changbin Xi retains the patent and retains the right to assert it. However, the filing of a declaratory judgement action itself signals that at least one market participant viewed the patent as a potential threat — relevant context for any future enforcement campaign.
Patent untestedDesign patent risk in the neck massager market remains live
The dismissal resolves nothing commercially. Sellers and importers of neck massager products who may have been watching this action for guidance on the scope or validity of USD1022239S have received no judicial signal. The ornamental design covered by this patent remains potentially enforceable. Companies operating in the consumer wellness and personal care device space should monitor any resumed enforcement activity by Changbin Xi and consider independent FTO analysis.
Enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Putian Diselanke Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | Consumer goods trading company — holder of declaratory judgement claim over USD1022239SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Changbin Xi | Individual | Individual patent holder Changbin Xi, named defendant in declaratory judgement actionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Liping Peng | Attorney | Counsel for Putian Diselanke Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order — ‘This case is dismissed for want of prosecution’ — is a procedural termination with no adjudication of the merits. It does not establish infringement, non-infringement, validity, or invalidity of USD1022239S. For Putian Diselanke, it means no declaratory relief was obtained. For Changbin Xi, it means the patent was never invalidated or limited by court order. The enforceability of the patent is unchanged by this outcome, and the prejudice status of the dismissal — a critical factor for refiling — is not apparent from the docket entry alone.
USD1022239S — Ornamental Design for a Neck Massager
USD1022239S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a neck massager, filed under application number US29/901973. Design patents protect how a product looks — not how it functions — and grant the holder the right to exclude others from making, selling, or importing articles with a substantially similar ornamental design. In the highly competitive consumer wellness and personal care device market, design patents on ergonomic and wearable massager form factors have become increasingly significant enforcement tools.
The strategic value of USD1022239S lies in the crowded neck massager product category, where numerous manufacturers — particularly those sourcing from Chinese factories — sell visually similar products across Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, and other e-commerce channels. A design patent holder in this space can deploy Amazon’s IP Complaint system, CBP exclusion requests, or ITC Section 337 proceedings in addition to district court litigation. The filing of a declaratory judgement action by a Chinese trading company against this patent suggests it was being actively asserted or threatened in a commercial context.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD1022239S?
Any company designing, importing, or selling a neck massager product in the U.S. market should assess its exposure to USD1022239S. Design patent infringement is evaluated under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — if an ordinary consumer would believe your product and the patented design are substantially the same, infringement may be found even without functional copying. Given that this patent was actively involved in litigation, its enforceability and the identity of its current holder warrant direct verification before product launch or continued importation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the ornamental design claim scope of USD1022239S, identify the prosecution history of US29/901973, surface comparable granted and pending design patents in the neck massager and wearable wellness device category, and flag any related applications that may present a broader design patent family. R&D and product teams can use this analysis to guide industrial design choices that maintain aesthetic differentiation and reduce infringement exposure in the U.S. market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1022239S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent DJ Actions in Consumer Wellness Devices
Cases involving design patent declaratory judgement actions over consumer wellness and personal care devices in the N.D. Illinois and comparable federal district courts.
What this case signals for the neck massager and consumer device IP landscape
A rapid want-of-prosecution dismissal in a design patent DJ action leaves commercial uncertainty intact for the broader market.
DJ filings signal design patent enforcement pressure — even when they collapse
Putian Diselanke’s decision to file a declaratory judgement action indicates it perceived a credible threat from USD1022239S. Even without a merits ruling, DJ filings in consumer electronics and wellness devices are a reliable signal of active assertion activity. Competitors and importers in this space should treat this filing as a market intelligence data point, not a resolution.
Want-of-prosecution dismissals often precede private resolutions
In IP matters involving Chinese trading companies and individual design patent holders, cases dismissed for want of prosecution frequently reflect off-docket settlements or marketplace resolutions rather than true abandonment. The 48-day window between filing and dismissal is consistent with a rapid commercial negotiation. IP teams should cross-reference customs and e-commerce enforcement activity for signals of any parallel resolution.
Putian v Changbin — key questions answered
It means the plaintiff, Putian Diselanke Trading Co., Ltd., failed to advance the case with sufficient diligence and the court closed the docket without ruling on the merits. No finding was made on infringement or validity of USD1022239S. The patent remains enforceable and the dispute unresolved by this proceeding.
Yes. The dismissal for want of prosecution did not invalidate or limit USD1022239S. Because no merits ruling was issued, the patent’s enforceability is legally unchanged. Changbin Xi retains the right to assert the patent in future proceedings, and the scope of the ornamental design claim was never judicially construed.
Declaratory judgement actions are typically filed when a party has received a cease-and-desist letter, an Amazon IP complaint, or another assertion of patent rights that creates a reasonable apprehension of suit. Filing in federal court allows the DJ plaintiff to choose venue and frame the dispute. The rapid collapse of this case suggests the underlying commercial pressure may have been resolved outside of litigation.
If dismissed without prejudice, Putian Diselanke could potentially refile the declaratory judgement action in the future. If with prejudice, that right is extinguished. The public docket entry does not specify which applies here. Practitioners should review the actual dismissal order to determine whether refiling remains an option or whether the DJ claim is permanently barred.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Venue selection in DJ actions can affect procedural rules, litigation pace, and the judge’s familiarity with IP matters. The N.D. Illinois is a significant IP venue, and Chinese trading companies have frequently used it to seek declaratory relief against design patent assertions targeting their U.S. commercial operations.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.