Shangyou Jiayi Lighting v. Schedule A Defendants: Vine Lamp Patent Suit Dismissed
Shangyou Jiayi Lighting Product Co., Ltd. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against unnamed online marketplace sellers over US10082258B2, a patent covering vine lamp products. After 188 days, plaintiff’s counsel filed a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — without specifying whether the case settled or was abandoned.
Schedule A lighting suit ends in voluntary dismissal before any ruling
On December 10, 2024, Shangyou Jiayi Lighting Product Co., Ltd., a Chinese lighting manufacturer, filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-12696) before Judge John F. Kness. The suit targeted an unspecified group of defendants — identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — a common ‘Schedule A’ pleading structure used in e-commerce enforcement actions. The patent at issue is US10082258B2, directed to vine lamp products, a category of decorative LED lighting commonly sold through online marketplaces.
On June 16, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel at Avek IP LLC filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissing all claims and all defendants without prejudice. Because the dismissal was filed before any defendant served an answer or motion for summary judgment, no court order was required to effectuate it. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement, licensing agreement, or other resolution preceded the dismissal decision.
The 188-day duration is broadly consistent with the lifecycle of Schedule A enforcement actions that resolve through private negotiation rather than litigation on the merits. It is not uncommon in this filing pattern for plaintiffs to obtain injunctions, freeze marketplace accounts, and then dismiss after recovering damages or entering confidential settlements. What remains unknown is whether any such relief was obtained or any agreement reached — the public docket does not reflect it.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 188 days
188 days — resolved before any substantive merits ruling by the court
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 filing means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal: no court order required
A plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) gives the plaintiff a unilateral right to exit the case at this early stage. The dismissal is self-executing upon filing — Judge Kness did not need to approve it. This mechanism is routinely used in Schedule A enforcement actions once the plaintiff’s objectives have been met or the litigation is no longer strategically necessary.
Plaintiff-initiated exitWithout prejudice: the case can be refiled
The notice expressly states dismissal ‘without prejudice,’ meaning the plaintiff retains the right to bring the same claims against the same defendants in a future action, subject to the applicable statute of limitations. This contrasts with a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar refiling permanently. Critically, the public record is silent on whether a private settlement or licensing arrangement accompanied the dismissal — either outcome is consistent with a without-prejudice filing in Schedule A litigation.
Refiling remains possibleDefendants face no final judgment — but ongoing exposure
Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, no judgment, injunction, or damages award was entered against any named defendant. However, the without-prejudice status means defendants cannot treat this dismissal as a permanent resolution. If marketplace account freezes or preliminary injunctions were obtained during the 188-day window — a common feature of Schedule A actions — those effects would have been operative during the proceedings. The public record does not confirm or deny this.
No final judgment enteredSchedule A tactics remain a live enforcement tool for lighting IP
This case is consistent with a well-established enforcement strategy targeting e-commerce sellers of decorative LED lighting. Plaintiffs in this space frequently use the Schedule A structure to target multiple sellers simultaneously, leverage TROs to freeze marketplace accounts, and resolve disputes privately. The voluntary dismissal without prejudice — filed before any substantive ruling — does not weaken US10082258B2. The patent remains in force and can be reasserted.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shangyou Jiayi Lighting Product Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese decorative lighting manufacturer — holder of US10082258B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships And Unicorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A | Individual | Unnamed online marketplace sellers identified on Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Allen Justin Poplin | Attorney | Counsel for Shangyou Jiayi Lighting Product Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wangxue Deng | Attorney | Counsel for Shangyou Jiayi Lighting Product Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Avek IP LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shangyou Jiayi Lighting Product Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John F. Kness | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The voluntary dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) expressly and confirms dismissal of ‘all claims and defendants’ without prejudice. The scope of the dismissal is total — no claims were carved out and no defendant was retained in the action. The without-prejudice designation is the critical qualifier: it signals that plaintiff did not concede on the merits and retains full authority to refile. The absence of any reference to settlement terms in the public filing means the commercial resolution, if any, remains entirely private.
US10082258B2 — Decorative vine lamp lighting technology
US10082258B2 (application number US14/885713) covers vine lamp products — a category of flexible, branch-style decorative LED lighting widely sold through online marketplaces such as Amazon and Temu. This patent was asserted by Shangyou Jiayi Lighting Product Co., Ltd., a Chinese manufacturer operating in the decorative and ambient lighting segment. The patent’s issuance date and application lineage suggest it covers design or utility aspects of vine-format LED arrangements that have become a commoditised but commercially significant product category in the e-commerce lighting market.
For competitors in the decorative LED lighting space, US10082258B2 represents a live enforcement risk even after this dismissal. The Schedule A filing structure indicates the patent holder views the patent as broadly applicable against multiple online sellers simultaneously. Companies developing or sourcing vine lamp products — or functionally similar flexible LED decorative lighting — should conduct claim mapping against this patent before commercialising competing products, particularly if they plan to sell through major U.S. e-commerce platforms.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10082258B2?
Any company sourcing, manufacturing, or distributing vine lamp or flexible decorative LED lighting products for the U.S. market should treat US10082258B2 as a live clearance risk. This case demonstrates that Shangyou Jiayi is actively enforcing this patent through coordinated Schedule A actions in federal court. Even a without-prejudice dismissal does not exhaust the patent’s enforceability — and the Schedule A mechanism allows rapid reassertion against the same or different sellers.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10082258B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface related patents in the same family that could expand your exposure. For teams sourcing decorative LED products from Chinese manufacturers, Eureka can also cross-reference supplier patent relationships to flag whether your supply chain introduces additional third-party IP risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10082258B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A LED lighting patent cases in U.S. federal courts
Cases below share the Schedule A enforcement structure and decorative LED lighting technology domain filed in U.S. district courts, particularly in Illinois.
What this case signals for the decorative LED lighting IP landscape
Schedule A actions like this one are reshaping how lighting IP is enforced against e-commerce sellers — fast, targeted, and largely below the public radar.
Schedule A enforcement is a fast-cycle IP strategy, not a slow trial play
This case resolved in 188 days without a single substantive ruling. That timeline is consistent with a strategy designed to pressure online sellers quickly — often using TROs and account freezes — rather than litigate to judgment. Companies selling decorative lighting online should assume that patent holders are monitoring marketplaces actively and can move swiftly.
Without-prejudice dismissal keeps US10082258B2 fully armed for reuse
Shangyou Jiayi’s vine lamp patent was not adjudicated, not invalidated, and not limited by any claim construction. The voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves the patent in its original enforceability posture. Any company operating in the vine lamp or decorative LED segment should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk, not a resolved one.
Shangyou v Partnerships — key questions answered
It means plaintiff’s counsel unilaterally ended the case under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before any defendant filed an answer. The ‘without prejudice’ designation means Shangyou Jiayi can refile the same infringement claims against the same or different defendants in the future. No final judgment was entered and no court ruling was issued on the merits of US10082258B2.
Yes. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice has no effect on the underlying patent’s validity or enforceability. US10082258B2 was not adjudicated, not subjected to claim construction, and not invalidated. The patent remains in force and Shangyou Jiayi retains all rights to assert it in future litigation or licensing demands.
Schedule A lawsuits allow plaintiffs to sue large numbers of unnamed defendants — typically online marketplace sellers — in a single action by listing them on an attached schedule. This structure is common in decorative lighting and consumer goods IP enforcement because it enables plaintiffs to seek ex parte TROs that freeze marketplace accounts across multiple sellers simultaneously, maximising commercial leverage before defendants can respond.
Shangyou Jiayi Lighting was represented by Allen Justin Poplin and Wangxue Deng of Avek IP LLC, a firm that regularly handles Schedule A IP enforcement actions for Chinese manufacturers. The involvement of Avek IP LLC suggests this action may be part of a broader, coordinated enforcement programme. Practitioners should review Avek IP’s docket history for related filings involving the same or related patents.
Yes. Because the dismissal was entered without prejudice, Shangyou Jiayi is not barred from refiling infringement claims based on US10082258B2 against the same defendants or new ones, provided the applicable statute of limitations has not expired. The public record does not reveal whether a settlement or licensing arrangement was reached, which would be the typical reason a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a Schedule A action at this stage.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.