Shanghai Xinqi v. Schedule A Defendants: Mason Jar Patent Action Dismissed in 112 Days
Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of US11981555B2, covering mason jar sealing products, by anonymous e-commerce sellers. After an unadjudicated TRO motion, Xinqi voluntarily dismissed without prejudice within 112 days — opting instead to leverage Amazon’s platform dispute resolution procedures.
E-commerce patent enforcement pivots from court to Amazon platform
On July 19, 2024, Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against unnamed e-commerce sellers collectively identified as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ The asserted patent, US11981555B2, covers mason jar sealing products — a consumer goods category heavily traded on third-party marketplaces such as Amazon. Xinqi simultaneously filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order seeking to halt alleged ongoing infringement.
The case closed on November 8, 2024 — just 112 days after filing — when Xinqi voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal was not a settlement or a court ruling on the merits. Rather, Xinqi explicitly stated it was switching enforcement strategies: Amazon’s own dispute resolution procedures require the underlying court case to be dismissed before the platform will process an IP complaint. No defendant had been served, and no answer or summary judgment motion had been filed.
The swift pivot from federal litigation to platform-based enforcement is consistent with a broader tactic employed by Chinese e-commerce IP holders, who often file suit in the Northern District of Illinois — a court receptive to Schedule A cases — to obtain TROs and asset freezes before redirecting enforcement to Amazon or similar marketplaces. The public record does not disclose whether Xinqi ultimately succeeded through Amazon’s process, nor whether the TRO motion produced any interim relief before dismissal. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal preserves Xinqi’s option to refile if platform remedies prove insufficient.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 112 days
112 days — resolved well under the district court median of ~2.5 years for patent cases
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral dismissal before service
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the opposing party has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, no defendant was served, making this a textbook unilateral exit. The dismissal is self-executing — it requires no judicial approval and takes effect immediately upon filing the notice.
No court order requiredXinqi preserves the right to refile — but terms are unconfirmed
Xinqi’s notice explicitly stated dismissal ‘without prejudice,’ meaning the patent claims survive and the plaintiff is not barred from reasserting US11981555B2 in a future action against the same or similar defendants. However, the public record does not confirm any agreed terms or side arrangements. A ‘without prejudice’ dismissal at this stage is also the default under Rule 41(a)(1) absent contrary specification, so no inference of settlement or resolution should be drawn.
Claims remain aliveNo merits adjudication — defendants face continued exposure
Because no defendant was ever served and no merits ruling was issued, the Schedule A sellers received no formal vindication. Xinqi’s shift to Amazon’s dispute resolution platform means enforcement pressure may continue through listing removals, account suspensions, or payment freezes — remedies that operate entirely outside the federal court system and with lower evidentiary thresholds.
Platform enforcement continuesAmazon enforcement as a parallel track to federal litigation
This case illustrates the dual-track enforcement model increasingly used by patent holders in the consumer goods space: file in federal court to establish record credibility and obtain interim relief, then pivot to platform procedures which can delist infringing products faster than litigation timelines allow. Sellers operating in mason jar, kitchen accessory, or related e-commerce categories should audit their product listings against US11981555B2 regardless of whether a federal case is active.
Dual-track IP enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Consumer goods electronics manufacturer — holder of US11981555B2 (mason jar sealing products)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers on Schedule A; no appearance or service recorded in this actionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Allen Justin Poplin | Attorney | Counsel for Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wangxue Deng | Attorney | Counsel for Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Avek IP LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John Robert Blakey | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is a procedural exit, not a merits determination. The court made no findings on infringement, validity, or damages with respect to US11981555B2. Critically, Xinqi’s stated rationale — that Amazon’s dispute resolution rules require an active case to be dismissed before platform complaints can proceed — suggests the dismissal was strategic rather than concessive. The without-prejudice designation preserves all claims for potential refiling, and no inference of weakness or settlement should be drawn from this termination.
US11981555B2 — Mason jar sealing product technology
US11981555B2 (application number US17/944828) protects mason jar sealing product technology developed by Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. Mason jar sealing innovations in this category typically involve closure mechanisms, vacuum sealing features, or accessory designs that enhance food preservation and reusability of standard mason jars — a high-volume consumer goods segment with significant e-commerce penetration. The patent’s issuance as a B2 publication indicates it completed full examination with a granted claims set.
From a competitive standpoint, US11981555B2 gives Xinqi an enforcement tool against the dense field of third-party sellers offering similar mason jar sealing accessories on platforms like Amazon. The consumer kitchenware market is characterized by rapid SKU proliferation and low barriers to product copying, making patent enforcement — including platform-based takedowns — a commercially significant lever. Competitors and OEM suppliers in this product category should treat this patent as an active risk asset, particularly given Xinqi’s demonstrated willingness to file federal litigation and pursue parallel platform remedies.
Should your team run an FTO against US11981555B2?
Any company sourcing, importing, manufacturing, or selling mason jar sealing accessories — especially through Amazon or other third-party marketplaces — should assess exposure against US11981555B2. Xinqi has demonstrated active enforcement intent: a federal filing in a favorable venue, a TRO motion, and a pivot to Amazon’s dispute resolution process all within four months. The risk is not theoretical. Even sellers who were not named in this Schedule A action may fall within the patent’s claim scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map the independent and dependent claims of US11981555B2 against their own product specifications in minutes. Eureka cross-references cited prior art, identifies potential design-around opportunities, and flags related family members or continuations that may broaden Xinqi’s enforcement perimeter. For e-commerce sellers operating in this category, a documented FTO analysis also strengthens any Amazon counter-notice response if a platform complaint is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11981555B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent cases: consumer goods & N.D. Illinois
Explore related Schedule A patent infringement cases filed in the Northern District of Illinois involving consumer goods, mason jar, and kitchen accessory patents.
What this case signals for the consumer goods e-commerce IP landscape
Xinqi’s tactical pivot reveals a maturing enforcement playbook that IP teams and marketplace sellers must understand.
Schedule A filings in N.D. Ill. are a launch pad, not always an endpoint
The Northern District of Illinois has become a preferred venue for Schedule A e-commerce patent cases because of its receptiveness to ex parte TROs and asset freezes. Many such cases — like this one — are filed primarily to satisfy platform prerequisites rather than to litigate to judgment. IP teams monitoring competitor enforcement activity should track case dispositions, not just filings.
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice keeps litigation risk alive for sellers
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal does not resolve the underlying IP dispute. Marketplace sellers named in Schedule A actions that end this way should not treat the dismissal as clearance. The patent holder retains full ability to refile, and Amazon enforcement actions may proceed independently of the court docket.
Shanghai v Partnerships — key questions answered
Xinqi dismissed the case under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without prejudice, meaning no court ruled on infringement or validity of US11981555B2. The dismissal is self-executing and preserves Xinqi’s right to refile the same claims against the same or similar defendants in the future. It does not constitute a win for the defendants.
Xinqi’s dismissal notice explicitly states that Amazon’s dispute resolution procedures require the underlying court case to be dismissed before the platform will process an IP complaint. This reflects a common dual-track enforcement strategy: use federal filing to establish credibility and attempt interim relief, then shift to faster platform-based remedies.
The asserted patent is US11981555B2 (application US17/944828), held by Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. It covers mason jar sealing products — a consumer goods category with significant e-commerce activity. The patent was filed and examined to grant, with full claims coverage confirmed by the B2 publication status.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice and no defendant was served or appeared, there is no res judicata or claim preclusion bar. Xinqi retains the right to refile federal litigation or pursue individual defendants through Amazon’s IP dispute process. Sellers should not treat this dismissal as a safe harbor.
Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois allow patent holders to sue groups of anonymous e-commerce sellers under a single complaint, often seeking ex parte TROs and asset freezes early in the case. The court has been receptive to this model. Many such cases resolve through platform enforcement, default judgment, or voluntary dismissal rather than a full trial on the merits.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.