Qingsong Lei v. Ezire-Direct USA: Snorkel Mask Design Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Qingsong Lei, holder of design patent USD838358S covering a snorkel mask with integrated snorkel, sued Ezire-Direct USA and a slate of anonymous online sellers in the Northern District of Illinois. The case resolved in 188 days with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice — each party bearing its own costs.
Design patent snorkel mask dispute ends in stipulated dismissal with prejudice
On 17 May 2024, Qingsong Lei filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-04002) against a group of anonymous online sellers identified on Schedule A, with Ezire-Direct USA named as a specific defendant. The asserted patent, USD838358S (application number US29/600355), protects the ornamental design of a mask with snorkel — a product category heavily traded on e-commerce marketplaces. The case was presided over by Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman and pursued by a multi-firm plaintiff team including Bayramoglu Law Offices, Direction IP Law, and Ni, Wang & Massand.
On 21 November 2024, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), which Judge Coleman converted into an Order of Dismissal. The dismissal is with prejudice as to all claims and causes of action between Qingsong Lei and Ezire-Direct USA, meaning the plaintiff is permanently barred from re-asserting the same design patent claims against this defendant. Notably, each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting neither side sought — or could obtain — an exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
The 188-day duration is consistent with an early negotiated resolution, likely before or shortly after substantive motions practice. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is typical of Schedule A marketplace cases where defendants may agree to cease infringing activity in exchange for a clean exit. The public record does not disclose any monetary settlement terms, ongoing royalty, or consent injunction, leaving the precise commercial resolution between the parties undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 188 days
188 days — faster than the median N.D. Ill. patent case, consistent with early negotiated resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Rule 41(a) stipulated dismissal with prejudice — claims are extinguished
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), parties may jointly stipulate to dismiss an action. Where, as here, the dismissal is ‘with prejudice,’ it operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Qingsong Lei is permanently barred from re-filing the same infringement claims under USD838358S against Ezire-Direct USA in any federal court. The order converts the private stipulation into a court-enforceable judgment.
Rule 41(a) — with prejudicePatent holder accepts a permanent bar — no second bite at Ezire-Direct USA
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Qingsong Lei permanently surrenders the right to reassert USD838358S against Ezire-Direct USA. This outcome typically suggests the parties reached a private commercial arrangement — such as a commitment to cease sales — or that the plaintiff concluded further litigation was not cost-effective. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties not covered by this stipulation.
Patent survives — defendant releasedEzire-Direct USA exits with full release and no cost order
Ezire-Direct USA obtains a complete release from all claims under USD838358S brought in this action, with no attorneys’ fees or damages awarded against it. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means the defendant avoids any financial exposure beyond its own legal spend. Whether this exit required any product redesign, inventory removal, or undisclosed payment is not reflected in the public docket.
Full release — no damages on recordUSD838358S remains live — other Schedule A sellers remain exposed
The dismissal covers only Ezire-Direct USA. Any other defendants named on Schedule A who have not separately resolved their exposure remain subject to the original infringement claims. For e-commerce sellers of snorkel mask products with a similar ornamental design, USD838358S continues to represent active enforcement risk. Design patent holders regularly use Schedule A actions as a scalable enforcement strategy across multiple marketplace sellers simultaneously.
Ongoing risk for other marketplace sellersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Qingsong Lei | Individual | Individual design patent holder — holder of USD838358S for ornamental snorkel mask designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | E-commerce seller Ezire-Direct USA, one of multiple Schedule A marketplace defendantsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Ezire-Direct USA | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Randolph Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Qingsong LeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Silver | Attorney | Counsel for Qingsong LeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hao Ni | Attorney | Counsel for Qingsong LeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven G. Kalberg | Attorney | Counsel for Qingsong LeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stevenson Moore | Attorney | Counsel for Qingsong LeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bayramoglu Law Offices Llc | Law Firm | Representing Qingsong LeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Direction IP Law | Law Firm | Representing Qingsong LeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni Law Firm PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Qingsong LeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Qingsong LeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation is phrased as a mutual agreement under Rule 41(a) and explicitly specifies dismissal ‘with prejudice as to all claims and causes of action between these two parties.’ This language is precise and consequential: it forecloses any future action by Qingsong Lei against Ezire-Direct USA on the same patent claims. The absence of any damages award, injunction, or fee-shifting order in the public record is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a litigated outcome. The restriction to ‘these two parties’ confirms the remaining Schedule A defendants are unaffected by this order.
USD838358S — Ornamental design for a mask with snorkel
USD838358S (application number US29/600355) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a mask with snorkel — a full-face or partial snorkel mask product widely sold through e-commerce channels. U.S. design patents, identified by the ‘D’ prefix, protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of an article of manufacture rather than its functional features. They are assessed for infringement under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary purchaser would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design.
Design patents in the consumer water sports and recreational equipment space have become significant enforcement tools, particularly as Chinese-manufactured snorkel mask products proliferate on platforms such as Amazon and Alibaba. A single design registration can support actions against numerous sellers of visually similar products. For brands, OEMs, and importers operating in this product category, USD838358S represents active enforcement risk in the U.S. market, and its continued validity following this with-prejudice dismissal means the enforcement programme may continue against other parties.
Should you run an FTO against USD838358S before launching a snorkel mask product?
Any company designing, importing, or selling snorkel masks or full-face diving masks in the United States should assess clearance risk against USD838358S. Design patent infringement turns on the visual impression of the overall product under the ordinary observer standard — not claim-by-claim functional analysis. This makes early-stage FTO review essential for product teams sourcing from third-party manufacturers, where ornamental design control may be limited. The active enforcement history of this patent in N.D. Ill. elevates the practical risk profile.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to run image-based and text-based design patent searches across the USPTO design corpus, identify visually similar registered designs, and map the landscape of related design filings by the same applicant. For snorkel mask and water recreation product categories, Eureka can surface related design patents in the same family or by the same owner, helping you assess whether a broader enforcement programme exists beyond USD838358S.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0838358S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Ill. consumer goods
Explore comparable design patent infringement actions filed against Schedule A e-commerce defendants in the Northern District of Illinois involving consumer goods and recreational equipment.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent enforcement landscape
Schedule A design patent actions are a high-volume, low-friction enforcement tool — and this case illustrates both their reach and their limits.
Schedule A actions create asymmetric pressure on marketplace sellers
By naming anonymous defendants en masse, plaintiffs like Qingsong Lei can file a single action targeting dozens of e-commerce sellers simultaneously. The cost of defence often exceeds the cost of settlement for small sellers, making early stipulated dismissals — with prejudice — the rational commercial exit. IP teams monitoring competitor enforcement activity should track Schedule A filings in N.D. Ill. as a leading indicator of design patent assertion trends.
Mutual cost-bearing clauses signal private resolution, not litigation victory
A stipulated dismissal with each party bearing its own costs typically suggests an off-docket commercial arrangement rather than a clear win for either side. Neither party sought a § 285 exceptional case finding. For defendants in similar proceedings, this outcome profile — exit with no fee award — is achievable through early engagement and demonstrates that proactive response to Schedule A complaints can contain overall litigation exposure.
Lei v Partnerships — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a) means all claims asserted by Qingsong Lei against Ezire-Direct USA are permanently extinguished. The plaintiff cannot re-file the same infringement claims under USD838358S against this specific defendant in any U.S. federal court. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against third parties not covered by the stipulation.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice applies only to the claims between Qingsong Lei and Ezire-Direct USA. USD838358S remains a valid, issued U.S. design patent. Other defendants named on Schedule A who have not separately settled or been dismissed remain potentially exposed to the original infringement claims asserted in this action.
Schedule A actions allow a plaintiff to name multiple anonymous e-commerce defendants in a single complaint, identifying them by marketplace seller IDs rather than legal names. The Northern District of Illinois is a preferred venue for these filings due to its efficient procedures for issuing temporary restraining orders and freezing marketplace accounts, creating significant leverage over small online sellers at minimal per-defendant cost.
When both parties agree to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs, it typically indicates a negotiated resolution rather than a litigation win for either side. It also signals that neither party sought — or was likely to obtain — an ‘exceptional case’ fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This outcome profile is common in Schedule A actions where defendants agree to cease infringing activity in exchange for a clean exit.
U.S. design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa (Fed. Cir. 2008). A court asks whether an ordinary purchaser, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into thinking the accused product is the same as the patented design. Unlike utility patents, the analysis is visual and holistic — focusing on overall ornamental impression rather than discrete functional claim elements.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.