Shantou Hongkai v. Chuxuan Chen: Arrow Target Toy Design Patent Dismissed in 21 Days
Shantou Hongkai Technology Industrial Co. asserted design patent USD0979652S against seller Chuxuan Chen and associated defendants over seven Amazon arrow target toy ASINs. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims before any answer was filed, with each party bearing its own costs — closing the case in just 21 days.
Design patent assertion over Amazon toy listings ends before first response
On 24 September 2024, Shantou Hongkai Technology Industrial Co., LTD., a Chinese toy manufacturer, filed a patent infringement complaint in the Illinois Southern District Court before Judge Manish S. Shah. The suit targeted Chuxuan Chen, Mengye Yu, and ZGYDS Inc., asserting infringement of design patent USD0979652S — a design covering an arrow target toy product — through seven specific Amazon ASINs including B0C93VXGMT, B0C93XBG38, and five additional listings.
The case closed on 15 October 2024, just 21 days after filing, when plaintiff’s counsel at Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because no defendant had filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, unilateral dismissal was procedurally available without court order. The dismissal notice specifies that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs, though the public record does not expressly state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
A 21-day lifecycle is notably short even for pre-answer voluntary dismissals, suggesting the matter may have resolved informally — possibly through an out-of-court agreement, removal of the accused ASINs, or a licensing arrangement — though none of this is confirmed in the public record. The absence of defendant counsel on record is consistent with defendants who had not yet engaged litigation representation, a pattern frequently seen in Amazon-seller design patent enforcement actions.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 21 days
21 days — resolved before any defendant response was filed
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows unilateral exit before any response
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss a complaint without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because no defendant had responded here, Shantou Hongkai could exit unilaterally. The dismissal takes effect upon filing — no judicial approval is required.
Pre-answer unilateral dismissalThe public record is silent on prejudice status
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), a first voluntary dismissal is presumed without prejudice unless the notice states otherwise. The dismissal notice here does not expressly specify. A ‘without prejudice’ reading would allow Shantou Hongkai to refile against the same defendants; a ‘with prejudice’ resolution would bar future claims on the same cause of action. The public docket does not resolve this ambiguity.
Prejudice status unconfirmedDefendants exit with no adverse judgment on record
Chuxuan Chen, Mengye Yu, and ZGYDS Inc. face no infringement finding, no injunction, and no damages award. Because no answer was filed and no merits ruling was issued, the defendants bear no formal litigation record against them on this patent. Each party bears its own costs, meaning defendants incur no fee exposure from this proceeding.
No merits ruling against defendantsAmazon design patent enforcement: rapid resolution is common
This case is consistent with a well-established enforcement pattern in which design patent holders target Amazon marketplace sellers, relying on the commercial disruption of litigation as leverage. Pre-answer dismissals at this speed typically suggest ASIN removal, a confidential settlement, or a licensing arrangement reached off the record. Design patent USD0979652S remains in force and could support future enforcement actions.
Enforcement pattern — Amazon sellersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shantou Hongkai Technology Industrial Co., LTD., | Company | Chinese toy manufacturer — holder of design patent USD0979652SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Chuxuan Chen | Individual | Amazon marketplace seller alleged to offer infringing arrow target toy ASINsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward L. Bishop | Attorney | Counsel for Shantou Hongkai Technology Industrial Co., LTD.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas S. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Shantou Hongkai Technology Industrial Co., LTD.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Shantou Hongkai Technology Industrial Co., LTD.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Manish S. Shah | Judge | Illinois Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and confirms no answer or summary judgment motion was filed by any defendant, satisfying the procedural prerequisite for unilateral dismissal. The clause that ‘each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs’ is standard in pre-answer exits but does not constitute a court order — it reflects the plaintiff’s stated intent only. No merits adjudication occurred, and the patent’s validity and scope were never tested in these proceedings.
USD0979652S — Ornamental design for an arrow target toy product
USD0979652S is a U.S. design patent — identified by application number US29/841022 — protecting the ornamental appearance of an arrow target toy product. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of a product rather than its underlying mechanics, meaning protection is limited to the specific ornamental design as depicted in the patent drawings. The filing covers the product sold under multiple Amazon ASINs in the children’s toy and outdoor play category.
For a toy manufacturer like Shantou Hongkai, a design patent on a bestselling product form provides meaningful leverage against copycat Amazon sellers who replicate the product’s visual identity. Design patents in the consumer toy space are increasingly used as enforcement tools precisely because they are faster to obtain, cheaper to assert, and harder for marketplace sellers to design around quickly. The existence of seven named ASINs suggests this design has been commercially successful enough to attract imitators.
Should you run an FTO against USD0979652S before listing arrow target toys?
Any company — particularly Amazon third-party sellers, importers, or private-label toy brands — planning to list arrow target toy products in the U.S. market should evaluate their product designs against USD0979652S. Design patent infringement is determined by the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary consumer would find the accused product’s appearance substantially similar to the patented design. Proximity to the seven identified ASINs is a material risk indicator.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product designs against active design patents in the toy and outdoor play category, identify visual similarity risks, and flag related patents in Shantou Hongkai’s portfolio. Early-stage FTO analysis before listing new SKUs is significantly cheaper than responding to a pre-answer complaint, which — as this case illustrates — can achieve its commercial purpose before any court ruling.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0979652S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent cases involving toy products and Amazon sellers
Explore related design patent infringement actions in the toy sector filed in Illinois and comparable U.S. district courts targeting Amazon marketplace sellers.
What this case signals for the toy design patent enforcement landscape
A 21-day lifecycle and pre-answer dismissal are hallmarks of Amazon-seller design patent enforcement strategy.
Pre-answer dismissals in Amazon IP cases often signal off-record resolution
When a plaintiff files and dismisses within weeks — before any defendant response — it typically suggests the filing itself achieved its commercial objective. ASIN removal, delisting pressure, or a short-form licensing agreement are the most common drivers. IP teams monitoring competitor enforcement should treat rapid dismissals as potential signals of settlement, not case weakness.
Design patent USD0979652S remains enforceable after dismissal
A voluntary dismissal does not invalidate or narrow the asserted patent. Shantou Hongkai retains full rights under USD0979652S and may assert it against other sellers or refile against the same defendants depending on prejudice status. Sellers in the arrow target toy category on Amazon should assess their product designs against this patent before listing.
Shantou v Chuxuan — key questions answered
Shantou Hongkai Technology Industrial Co., LTD. filed a design patent infringement suit against Chuxuan Chen and associated defendants on 24 September 2024 in the Illinois Southern District Court, asserting patent USD0979652S over seven Amazon arrow target toy ASINs. The case was voluntarily dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on 15 October 2024 — 21 days after filing — before any defendant filed an answer.
USD0979652S is a U.S. design patent, filed under application number US29/841022, protecting the ornamental design of an arrow target toy product. Design patents protect visual appearance rather than functional features. It was asserted against seven Amazon ASINs including B0C93VXGMT and B0C93XBG38 in this infringement action.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to unilaterally dismiss a complaint before the defendant files an answer or summary judgment motion. In this case, no defendant had responded, so Shantou Hongkai could exit without court approval. The dismissal notice states each party bears its own costs but does not expressly specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
Potentially. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), a first voluntary dismissal is presumed without prejudice unless the notice states otherwise, which would allow refiling. However, the dismissal notice in this case does not expressly state ‘without prejudice,’ and the public docket does not confirm the prejudice status. Defendants and competitors in the arrow target toy category should monitor for subsequent filings.
Amazon seller enforcement actions frequently resolve pre-answer because the filing itself creates immediate commercial pressure — ASIN suspension risk, reputational exposure, and legal cost uncertainty. Defendants often remove listings or enter confidential agreements rather than litigate. A 21-day resolution, as seen here, is consistent with this pattern, though the specific terms of any off-record resolution in this case are not publicly available.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.