Shenzhen Bi Mo Shuxiang v. Zhiguang Zhang: Design Patent Infringement Voluntarily Dismissed
Shenzhen Bi Mo Shuxiang Culture Development Co., Ltd. brought a design patent infringement action against individual defendant Zhiguang Zhang in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting U.S. Design Patent USD995660S over six Amazon-listed product ASINs. The case closed in just 77 days following a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Amazon design patent suit ends in swift voluntary exit after 77 days
On 11 September 2024, Shenzhen Bi Mo Shuxiang Culture Development Co., Ltd., a China-based culture and development company, filed suit against Zhiguang Zhang in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-08304). The complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Design Patent USD995660S (Application No. 29/794514) across six Amazon product listings identified by ASINs B09N2Z7QWB, B09N32F962, B09QS3DXHW, B09QX2XR4B, B0B6VD6H17, and B0B6VFKZQH. The action was presided over by Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., with Plaintiff represented by Allen Justin Poplin and Wangxue Deng of Avek IP LLC.
The case closed on 27 November 2024 when Plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The public docket records no defendant agent or law firm, consistent with dismissal occurring before any responsive pleading was filed. Critically, the notice does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, leaving the preclusive effect of this termination ambiguous on the public record.
The 77-day resolution is notably short even for early-exit Amazon enforcement actions, suggesting the matter may have resolved informally — through a private settlement, licensing agreement, or cessation of sales — before formal litigation escalated. The absence of a defendant-side counsel of record reinforces this reading, though the public record provides no confirmation. Whether Plaintiff retains the right to re-file against Zhang or the same Amazon ASINs depends on the prejudice terms of the dismissal, which remain undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 77 days
77 days — resolved well below the typical 2–3 year N.D. Illinois patent litigation timeline
Voluntarily dismissed: what the public record does and does not tell us
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal before any responsive pleading
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action as of right — without court approval — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or summary judgment motion. The dismissal takes effect upon filing the notice. No judgment is entered and no merits ruling is made. The absence of any defendant counsel of record in this case is consistent with dismissal at this earliest procedural stage.
Pre-answer exitWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal is presumed to be without prejudice unless the notice specifies otherwise — but practitioners should verify the actual filing. A without-prejudice dismissal preserves Plaintiff’s right to re-file the same claims against Zhang. A with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes them. The docket as reviewed does not specify either designation, meaning the operative effect cannot be confirmed from public sources alone.
Prejudice terms unconfirmedNo merits adjudication — validity of USD995660S untested
Zhiguang Zhang faces no court-imposed liability, injunction, or fee award from this action. Because no responsive pleading was filed and no merits ruling was issued, the validity and enforceability of USD995660S remain entirely uncontested on the record. The defendant received no declaratory judgment of non-infringement, leaving residual exposure if Plaintiff re-files or pursues the same ASINs through Amazon’s IP complaint system.
No liability, no clearancePattern enforcement: swift exits often signal off-docket resolution
Amazon-focused design patent suits filed by Chinese IP holders through firms like Avek IP LLC frequently resolve through seller capitulation, listing removal, or private settlement before any court activity. A 77-day exit with no defendant counsel on record is consistent with this enforcement pattern. Other Amazon sellers offering visually similar products to the six named ASINs should note that USD995660S remains active and enforceable — this dismissal provides no safe harbour.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Bi Mo Shuxiang Culture Development Co., Ltd. | Company | China-based culture product developer — holder of design patent USD995660SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Zhiguang Zhang | Individual | Individual Amazon seller Zhiguang Zhang, named across six product ASINsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Allen Justin Poplin | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Bi Mo Shuxiang Culture Development Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wangxue Deng | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Bi Mo Shuxiang Culture Development Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Avek IP LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Bi Mo Shuxiang Culture Development Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The voluntary dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the self-executing pre-answer mechanism that requires no judicial action. No merits ruling was issued, no claim construction occurred, and the validity of USD995660S was never adjudicated. The filing closes the docket but does not resolve the underlying commercial dispute or confirm any licence. Both parties’ substantive positions remain legally untested.
USD995660S — U.S. Design Patent, Application No. 29/794514
USD995660S is a U.S. design patent granted under Application No. 29/794514, protecting the ornamental appearance of a specific consumer product. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover only the non-functional visual characteristics of an article of manufacture, meaning infringement is assessed by whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product’s appearance substantially similar to the patented design. The patent was asserted against six discrete Amazon ASINs, suggesting the claimed design maps to a defined product form factor commercially available on the Amazon US marketplace.
For competing sellers and importers, USD995660S represents an active design rights assertion by a Chinese IP holder willing to enforce in U.S. federal court. The patent has not been challenged via IPR or in any merits proceeding to date, meaning its validity presumption is intact. Chinese manufacturers exporting aesthetically similar consumer goods to the U.S. Amazon marketplace, particularly those targeting the same six ASIN product categories, face meaningful design patent risk until this patent expires or is invalidated.
Should you run an FTO against USD995660S before listing on Amazon?
Any seller, importer, or brand aggregator offering consumer products in the visual category defined by the six targeted ASINs (B09N2Z7QWB, B09N32F962, B09QS3DXHW, B09QX2XR4B, B0B6VD6H17, B0B6VFKZQH) should treat USD995660S as an active clearance obligation. Design patent infringement requires no intent — ordinary observer similarity is sufficient — and Plaintiff has demonstrated readiness to file in N.D. Illinois. An FTO conducted before scaling Amazon inventory could prevent costly delisting, customs seizure, or litigation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD995660S against your product’s ornamental features, identify related design applications or continuations filed by the same assignee, and surface any prior art that may support a validity challenge. Eureka also monitors new filings by Shenzhen Bi Mo Shuxiang and Avek IP LLC, alerting your team if similar enforcement actions are filed in other districts — giving you time to act before a complaint lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0995660S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Amazon design patent infringement cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable design patent infringement actions against Amazon sellers litigated in the Northern District of Illinois, including cases involving Chinese IP holders and rapid voluntary dismissals.
What this case signals for Amazon design patent enforcement
Swift voluntary dismissals in Amazon design patent suits are rarely neutral outcomes — they typically signal off-docket activity worth monitoring.
USD995660S remains fully enforceable against other sellers
This dismissal creates no invalidity finding, no consent judgment, and no public licence. Amazon sellers offering products that read on the ornamental design claimed in USD995660S carry the same infringement risk today as before the suit was filed. The patent has not been tested in litigation.
Pre-answer exits typically reflect private resolution or seller withdrawal
When a plaintiff dismisses before any defendant response, it most commonly suggests the target complied — delisting products, entering a licence, or paying a settlement — before litigation costs mounted. IP teams monitoring Shenzhen Bi Mo Shuxiang’s enforcement strategy should log this as a signal of active enforcement posture, not weakness.
Shenzhen v Zhiguang — key questions answered
Shenzhen Bi Mo Shuxiang filed a design patent infringement suit against Zhiguang Zhang in N.D. Illinois on 11 September 2024, asserting USD995660S over six Amazon ASINs. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims on 27 November 2024 under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), 77 days after filing, before any defendant response was filed.
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal means the plaintiff withdrew the case without a court order, before the defendant filed any answer. No merits ruling was made. The defendant faces no liability or injunction from this action. However, unless the dismissal specifies ‘with prejudice’, the plaintiff may potentially re-file the same claims.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal does not affect the validity or enforceability of USD995660S. No invalidity finding was made and no IPR has been recorded. The patent retains its full presumption of validity and can be asserted against other Amazon sellers offering visually similar products.
The public docket does not specify. The notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without stating a prejudice designation. Under the Federal Rules, a first voluntary dismissal is typically without prejudice absent a contrary specification, but practitioners should review the actual filing to confirm the operative terms.
Six Amazon ASINs were identified in the action: B09N2Z7QWB, B09N32F962, B09QS3DXHW, B09QX2XR4B, B0B6VD6H17, and B0B6VFKZQH. These listings were alleged to infringe the ornamental design claimed in USD995660S. The merits of the infringement allegation were never adjudicated.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.