Shenzhen Hai Le Bang v. Zhiguang Zhang: Dancing Cactus Toy Design Patent Dispute Settled in 56 Days
Three Chinese e-commerce trading companies jointly asserted US design patent USD0995660S — covering a dancing cactus plush toy — against individual defendant Zhiguang Zhang in the Northern District of Illinois. The parties reached a confidential settlement and the case was dismissed without prejudice in under two months.
Design patent enforcement over a novelty toy resolved quietly in under two months
Filed on 9 October 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Franklin U. Valderrama, this infringement action was brought by three Shenzhen-based trading companies — Shenzhen Hai Le Bang Trading Co. (HLB-US), Shenzhen Liu Rui He Trading Co. (LRH-US), and Zaoyang De Yuan Network Technology Co. (TWORIVER-US) — against individual defendant Zhiguang Zhang. The asserted patent, USD0995660S (application no. US29/794514), protects the ornamental design of a dancing cactus plush toy, a product category that has generated significant competitive activity on US e-commerce marketplaces.
The case closed on 4 December 2024 — just 56 days after filing — when the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, following a confidential settlement. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the plaintiffs retain the legal right to refile claims against Zhang should the settlement terms be breached or disputes re-emerge. The settlement terms are not part of the public record.
The rapid resolution suggests the defendant engaged promptly once served, and that both sides found commercial settlement preferable to contested litigation. The involvement of three co-plaintiffs — each operating under a distinct US trade name — is consistent with enforcement strategies used by Chinese sellers protecting design IP on platforms such as Amazon. What drove the specific settlement figure or any licensing terms remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 56 days
56 days — well below the median district court IP case duration of several years
Dismissed without prejudice: what the settlement exit means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal without prejudice keeps the door open
A voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 without prejudice means the court has made no ruling on the merits of the infringement claim. The action is terminated procedurally, but the plaintiffs are not barred from refiling the same claims against Zhang if circumstances warrant — for example, if settlement obligations are not honoured. No judicial finding of infringement or invalidity was entered.
No merits adjudicationPlaintiffs exit with confidential terms and preserved rights
The three co-plaintiffs secured a confidential settlement — the financial or behavioural terms of which are not publicly known — and retained the ability to refile under the without-prejudice dismissal. Design patent USD0995660S remains in force and is not weakened by this outcome. Plaintiffs also retain the option to pursue other infringers of the same design in future actions.
Patent remains enforceableZhang resolves dispute privately with no public liability finding
Defendant Zhiguang Zhang avoids a public judgment of infringement. The confidential nature of the settlement means no admission of liability is on the public record. However, the without-prejudice dismissal means Zhang cannot claim the matter is fully resolved if the plaintiffs allege future breach of the settlement agreement. No defendant counsel appeared on the docket, suggesting the defendant may have negotiated directly or through informal channels.
No public infringement findingRapid enforcement signals active design IP policing in novelty toy space
The 56-day lifecycle of this case is consistent with a coordinated enforcement strategy rather than prolonged litigation. Multiple co-plaintiffs asserting a single design patent against an individual seller is a pattern frequently seen in e-commerce IP enforcement on US marketplace platforms. Sellers in the dancing cactus toy category — and adjacent plush toy niches — should treat this outcome as a signal that design patent holders are actively monitoring and acting quickly against perceived infringers.
E-commerce design enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Hai Le Bang Trading Co., Ltd | Company | Chinese e-commerce trading companies — holders of design patent USD0995660SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Shenzhen Liu Rui He Trading Co., Ltd | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Zaoyang De Yuan Network Technology Co., Ltd | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Zhiguang Zhang | Individual | Individual defendant alleged to infringe dancing cactus plush toy design patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ruoting Men | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Hai Le Bang Trading Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tao Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Hai Le Bang Trading Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Glacier Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Hai Le Bang Trading Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Franklin U. Valderrama | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice confirms both parties engaged in good-faith settlement discussions after the defendant approached the plaintiffs. The use of Rule 41 without-prejudice language is deliberate: it closes the docket while preserving plaintiff optionality. No merit-based ruling was issued, meaning the enforceability and scope of USD0995660S are entirely unaffected. The confidential settlement structure prevents any precedent-setting on infringement scope for this design patent.
USD0995660S — Ornamental Design: Dancing Cactus Plush Toy
US design patent USD0995660S (application no. US29/794514) protects the ornamental appearance of a dancing cactus plush toy — a novelty product that has achieved significant commercial traction on US e-commerce platforms. Design patents in the US protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of a product; they do not cover how the toy moves or operates, only how it looks. The application number prefix 29/ confirms this is a design patent application filed with the USPTO.
The dancing cactus plush toy category is highly competitive on marketplace platforms, with numerous sellers offering visually similar products. A granted design patent in this space gives the holder a meaningful enforcement tool: design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test, meaning a product that creates substantially the same visual impression can be found infringing even without identical copying. For competitors, even minor ornamental differences may be legally significant — but only a proper FTO analysis can determine where the safe design space lies.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD0995660S?
Any company or individual seller sourcing, importing, or distributing dancing cactus plush toys — or visually similar novelty plush products — for the US market should consider whether USD0995660S poses infringement risk. The ordinary observer standard for design patents means visual similarity, not identical copying, is the threshold. This case demonstrates that the patent holders are actively enforcing, and enforcement actions can be filed and resolved rapidly, making proactive FTO analysis commercially prudent before product launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of USD0995660S against your specific product design, identify similar design patents in the plush and novelty toy space, and flag co-pending applications from the same inventor or assignee family. This allows R&D and sourcing teams to make informed go/no-go decisions and, where necessary, identify design-around opportunities before committing to inventory or marketplace listings.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0995660S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent enforcement cases in the US novelty toy sector
Explore related design patent infringement actions filed in US district courts involving plush toys, novelty products, and e-commerce marketplace enforcement by Chinese trading entities.
What this case signals for the novelty toy and e-commerce design IP landscape
A 56-day cradle-to-settlement lifecycle points to aggressive but commercially calibrated design patent enforcement in the US marketplace seller ecosystem.
Multi-plaintiff design enforcement is a deliberate litigation structure
Three separately incorporated entities jointly asserting one design patent against a single individual is not accidental. This structure can broaden standing, signal coordinated market control, and increase settlement pressure. Sellers and distributors in overlapping product categories should map co-plaintiff relationships when assessing enforcement risk.
Without-prejudice exits preserve enforcement leverage post-settlement
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the plaintiffs can refile if the defendant resumes the alleged infringing activity. This is a common enforcement lever: settlement compliance is effectively self-enforcing because the cost of non-compliance is immediate re-litigation with an already-prepared plaintiff team.
Shenzhen v Zhiguang — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on 4 December 2024 following a confidential settlement. No merits ruling was issued. The plaintiffs retain the right to refile if settlement terms are not honoured. The case lasted 56 days from filing to closure.
US design patent USD0995660S (application no. US29/794514) was asserted. It protects the ornamental design of a dancing cactus plush toy. Design patents cover visual appearance, not functional features. The patent remains in force and was not challenged or invalidated in this proceeding.
A dismissal without prejudice means no judgment was entered against Zhang. There is no public finding of infringement. However, the plaintiffs can refile the same claims in the future — for example, if Zhang resumes the allegedly infringing activity or if settlement obligations are breached. It is not a full and final resolution of the underlying IP dispute.
The three co-plaintiffs — HLB-US, LRH-US, and TWORIVER-US — each hold standing as related entities and collectively assert rights in USD0995660S. Multi-plaintiff structures in e-commerce IP enforcement are consistent with strategies used by Chinese marketplace sellers to consolidate enforcement actions and increase settlement pressure on individual defendants. The involvement of Glacier Law LLP suggests a coordinated enforcement programme.
Yes. Because the case was dismissed without prejudice following a settlement — with no court ruling on validity or infringement — patent USD0995660S remains fully enforceable. The dismissal has no legal effect on the patent’s scope or validity. The patent holders may assert it against other parties in future actions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.