Shenzhen Alex Technology v. HailiCare: ENT Irrigator Patent Action Dismissed Without Prejudice
Shenzhen Alex Technology filed a patent infringement action in the Northern District of California against HailiCare and over ten co-defendants, asserting US11826534B2 covering an ear, nose, and throat irrigator. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 78 days after filing, before any defendant had answered.
Swift pre-answer dismissal in a multi-defendant ENT device IP action
On 6 December 2023, Shenzhen Alex Technology Co., Ltd., a Shenzhen-based technology company, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against a large group of defendants led by HailiCare Inc. The action asserted infringement of US11826534B2, a patent covering an ear, nose, and throat irrigator. The defendant list spanned more than ten entities, including several Hefei-based e-commerce and electronics companies, a retail shoe store, and named individual Tingting Li — a pattern consistent with so-called Schedule A enforcement campaigns targeting online marketplace sellers.
The case closed on 22 February 2024 when plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing the entire action without prejudice. That procedural mechanism is available as of right when — as here — no defendant has yet filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. The without-prejudice designation means the dismissal does not bar Shenzhen Alex Technology from refiling the same infringement claims against the same or different defendants in the future.
At 78 days from filing to closure, the resolution is notably swift even for a voluntarily dismissed matter. The public record is silent on whether any private settlement, licensing agreement, or defendant-side compliance drove the early withdrawal. The involvement of multiple Chinese electronics and e-commerce entities, combined with the Schedule A pleading structure, suggests the plaintiff may have been pursuing leverage across a network of related sellers — a tactic where early, informal resolution is common and rarely disclosed.
Filing to resolution in 78 days
Closed in 78 days — well under the median for multi-defendant patent actions
What the voluntary dismissal without prejudice means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — dismissal as of right
A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) provided no defendant has served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here, no defendant had responded before plaintiff filed the notice, making this a unilateral right — no judicial approval was required. The court had no role in evaluating the merits.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice — refiling remains an option
A dismissal without prejudice does not adjudicate the underlying claims and does not prevent the plaintiff from refiling. The public record here states explicitly that dismissal is without prejudice. This is distinct from a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar relitigation. The record is silent on whether any private resolution — settlement or licence — accompanied the withdrawal, so the strategic reason for dismissal cannot be confirmed from public filings alone.
Refiling preservedSchedule A campaign: multi-defendant enforcement pattern
The defendant list — comprising numerous Hefei-based e-commerce entities, electronics sellers, and an individual — is consistent with Schedule A patent enforcement, a strategy where plaintiffs name clusters of online marketplace sellers in a single action. This approach can generate early settlement or take-down leverage across multiple sellers simultaneously, often before formal litigation costs escalate for any party.
Schedule A enforcement styleNo costs order — defendants face no recorded financial liability
Because the case closed before any defendant responded and no court order was entered, there is no recorded costs ruling. Defendants named in the action face no adjudicated financial liability from this proceeding. However, being named in a US district court patent action may have prompted defensive action — such as marketplace de-listing or informal settlement — even absent a formal court outcome.
No liability adjudicatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Alex Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Shenzhen-based technology company — holder of US11826534B2 (ENT irrigator)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Individuals, Corporations, Limited Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A attached | Company | HailiCare Inc. and 10+ co-defendants: Chinese e-commerce, electronics sellers, and individualsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Yue Xu | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Alex Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | California Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly states the action is dismissed without prejudice in its entirety. The phrase ‘in its entirety’ confirms all defendants and all claims are released from this proceeding simultaneously. The without-prejudice designation is legally significant: it preserves the plaintiff’s ability to refile, meaning no defendant received a binding adjudication of non-infringement. The record does not disclose any settlement terms or licence grants, leaving the commercial resolution — if any — entirely private.
US11826534B2 — Ear, Nose, and Throat Irrigator Device
US11826534B2 (application number US17/478881) protects an ear, nose, and throat irrigator — a personal health device used for flushing or irrigating ENT passages. The patent was asserted by Shenzhen Alex Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese technology company that registered the patent in the United States. ENT irrigators are a high-volume consumer health category sold extensively through online marketplaces, making US patent coverage a meaningful commercial asset for enforcement against competing sellers.
The assertion of this patent against a broad network of Chinese e-commerce entities suggests the patent holder views US11826534B2 as a tool for controlling the US marketplace channel for ENT irrigation products. Competitors designing or importing similar irrigators — particularly those selling on Amazon or comparable platforms — face meaningful exposure if their products intersect with the patent’s independent claims. The patent’s continued enforceability following this dismissal means the risk landscape for market entrants has not changed.
Should your ENT irrigator product trigger an FTO review of US11826534B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or selling an ear, nose, or throat irrigator in the United States should assess freedom-to-operate against US11826534B2. The patent is actively held, was recently asserted in US federal court, and remains in force. This applies especially to brands selling through online marketplaces, which have been the primary enforcement target in this and similar Schedule A actions. Importers of Chinese-manufactured ENT devices are at particular risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map the independent and dependent claims of US11826534B2 against a specific product design, identifying potential overlap before commercial launch or marketplace listing. Ongoing claim monitoring via Eureka can also alert teams to continuation filings or related applications by Shenzhen Alex Technology that could extend the patent family’s coverage.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11826534B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ENT Device and Schedule A Patent Enforcement Cases
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the ENT device and health-tech IP landscape
Short-fuse, multi-defendant patent actions in consumer health devices are rising. This case illustrates the leverage and limits of that enforcement model.
Schedule A tactics are increasingly used in consumer health device IP enforcement
Bundling numerous online marketplace sellers as co-defendants in a single filing amplifies enforcement reach and signals to the broader seller community. Even a swift voluntary dismissal may achieve commercial objectives — de-listing, informal licence fees, or market deterrence — without a court ruling. IP teams defending in this space should monitor Schedule A filings early.
Without-prejudice dismissal keeps all options open for the patent holder
Shenzhen Alex Technology retains the right to refile against any of the named defendants or new targets. Companies in the ENT irrigator and adjacent nasal care device categories should treat this dismissal as a pause, not a resolution. The asserted patent US11826534B2 remains in force and enforceable.
Shenzhen v Individuals — key questions answered
Shenzhen Alex Technology filed a patent infringement action against HailiCare Inc. and over ten co-defendants in the Northern District of California on 6 December 2023, asserting US11826534B2 covering an ENT irrigator. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 22 February 2024, 78 days after filing, before any defendant responded.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice means Shenzhen Alex Technology chose to end this action without a court ruling on the merits, and retains the right to refile the same claims against the same or different defendants in the future. No defendant received a binding non-infringement finding. The dismissal was filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) because no defendant had yet answered.
US11826534B2 (application US17/478881) is a United States patent held by Shenzhen Alex Technology Co., Ltd. covering an ear, nose, and throat irrigator — a personal health device used for irrigating ENT passages. The patent was asserted in this case against multiple online marketplace sellers of competing ENT irrigator products.
The multi-defendant structure, with parties named on a Schedule A and including numerous Chinese e-commerce and electronics entities, is consistent with Schedule A enforcement — a litigation strategy targeting networks of online marketplace sellers. This approach allows a plaintiff to assert IP rights broadly against multiple sellers in a single filing, often generating leverage for informal resolution or marketplace de-listings.
Yes. Because the dismissal was entered without prejudice, Shenzhen Alex Technology is not barred from refiling infringement claims based on US11826534B2. The patent remains in force. However, if a plaintiff previously dismissed the same defendant without prejudice and refiles, the second dismissal may operate as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(a)(1) — a risk factor for serial enforcement campaigns.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.