Shenzhen Kean Silicone v. Group Vertical: Fidget Toy Design Patent Dismissed in 40 Days
Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co. filed suit against Group Vertical, LLC in Michigan’s Western District over design patent USD0975787S covering a fidget toy. The plaintiff moved to dismiss its own case within 40 days — an unusually swift resolution leaving the door open for future claims.
Swift voluntary exit in a fidget toy design patent dispute
On 27 December 2023, Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co., Ltd., a China-based silicone products manufacturer, filed an infringement action against Group Vertical, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The suit centred on design patent USD0975787S — a registered ornamental design covering a fidget toy — with Kean Silicone alleging that Group Vertical’s product infringed that protected design.
Less than six weeks later, on 5 February 2024, the court granted Kean Silicone’s own Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (ECF No. 24). The action was dismissed without prejudice, with each party ordered to pay its own costs and attorney fees. A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff retains the right to bring identical or related claims in a future proceeding — the case is closed, but the legal dispute is not necessarily resolved on the merits.
A 40-day lifecycle from filing to close is notably compressed for patent litigation, which typically spans months or years at first instance. The speed of the plaintiff’s own dismissal motion suggests the parties may have reached an informal arrangement, or that the plaintiff reconsidered its litigation strategy shortly after filing. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, licence agreement, or the specific reason Kean Silicone sought dismissal.
Filing to voluntary dismissal in 40 days
Case duration — 40 days from filing to close, well below typical district court timelines
What the without-prejudice dismissal means for both parties
Plaintiff-initiated dismissal under Rule 41
When a plaintiff moves to voluntarily dismiss its own case, courts typically grant it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Here, the court granted ECF No. 24 in full. This means the case was closed at the plaintiff’s own request — not on the merits, not due to a court ruling on infringement or validity. The defendant did not obtain a judgment in its favour.
Voluntary Rule 41 dismissalWithout prejudice — refiling remains possible
A dismissal without prejudice expressly preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile. Kean Silicone could assert the same patent against Group Vertical again in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any intervening changes to the patent’s status. The public record does not disclose why the dismissal was sought without prejudice rather than with, or whether any side agreement underpins the resolution.
Refiling right preservedEach party pays its own costs — no fee-shifting
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs and attorney fees. In U.S. patent litigation, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 requires a finding that the case is ‘exceptional.’ No such finding was made here. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with an agreed or uncontested dismissal, and neither party emerged with a cost award.
No § 285 fee awardDesign patent USD0975787S remains in force
Because the case was dismissed without a ruling on validity or infringement, design patent USD0975787S (App. No. US29/807935) survives the litigation intact. Its enforceability against Group Vertical or any other party is unchanged by this dismissal. Competitors in the fidget toy and silicone consumer product space should note that the patent remains a live assertion risk.
Patent enforceable — no invalidity rulingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co., Ltd. | Company | China-based silicone product manufacturer — holder of design patent USD0975787SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Group Vertical, LLC | Company | Group Vertical, LLC — U.S.-based distributor, self-represented in the proceedingsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Pete Scott Wolfgram | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Xiyan Zhang | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Group Vertical, LLC | Attorney | Counsel for Group Vertical, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Michigan Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order is narrow and procedural: it grants the plaintiff’s own motion, dismisses the action without prejudice, and allocates costs equally. No findings were made on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The without-prejudice language is the operative term — it explicitly leaves Kean Silicone’s enforcement rights intact. For Group Vertical, the absence of a declaratory judgment of non-infringement means this order provides no legal shield against a future action on the same patent.
USD0975787S — Ornamental Design for a Fidget Toy
USD0975787S is a U.S. design patent granted to Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co., Ltd., filed under application number US29/807935. Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture — in this case, the visual design of a fidget toy. Unlike utility patents, design patents do not protect function; infringement is assessed by whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product substantially similar in appearance to the patented design.
In the highly competitive consumer novelty toy market, ornamental design protection is a significant commercial lever. A granted design patent on a fidget toy silhouette or form factor can block visually similar competing products regardless of differing internal mechanics. With Shenzhen-based manufacturers increasingly securing U.S. design registrations on popular consumer items, distributors and retailers importing comparable products face meaningful infringement exposure if sourcing decisions are made without FTO analysis.
Should your team run an FTO check against USD0975787S?
Any company importing, distributing, or retailing fidget toys or comparable silicone novelty items in the U.S. market should treat USD0975787S as an active risk. Because the patent was not invalidated in this proceeding and Kean Silicone retains refiling rights, the enforcement risk is live. Product teams sourcing from third-party manufacturers in particular should verify whether their SKUs fall within the ornamental scope of this design registration.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and sourcing teams to map a product’s visual and functional profile against granted design patents, including USD0975787S. Eureka can surface design patents with overlapping ornamental scope, flag continuation or related applications, and support claim-by-claim monitoring — giving procurement and legal teams the visibility needed before a product enters the U.S. market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0975787S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in consumer toy and novelty goods
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 consumer novelty toy design patent landscape
A 40-day dismissal without prejudice often masks a resolution the public record cannot confirm. Here is what IP teams should take from it.
Design patent enforcement in consumer goods moves fast — and quietly
This case resolved in 40 days with no public settlement terms disclosed. Design patent holders in the consumer product space increasingly use the threat of litigation to prompt rapid private resolution. IP teams at distributors and retailers sourcing fidget toys or comparable novelty items should treat incoming complaints seriously even when filings appear procedurally thin.
Without-prejudice dismissal is not a clean exit for the defendant
Group Vertical received no judgment in its favour and no covenant not to sue. Kean Silicone retains the full right to refile. Distributors in this position should audit their product sourcing and, where possible, secure an indemnification clause from their supplier — particularly when the original manufacturer is also the patent holder.
Shenzhen v Group — key questions answered
Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co. filed a design patent infringement action against Group Vertical, LLC in the Western District of Michigan on 27 December 2023 over fidget toy design patent USD0975787S. The plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the case, and the court granted the motion on 5 February 2024, closing the action without prejudice after just 40 days.
A dismissal without prejudice means Kean Silicone retains the right to refile the same or related claims against Group Vertical in a future action. Group Vertical did not receive a judgment of non-infringement or invalidity, so it has no court-issued legal protection against a subsequent suit asserting the same patent, USD0975787S.
Yes. Because the case was dismissed without any ruling on validity or infringement, USD0975787S remains fully enforceable. No post-grant challenge proceedings are reflected in the case record, and the dismissal without prejudice leaves the patent’s legal status entirely unchanged.
Shenzhen Kean Silicone was represented by attorneys Pete Scott Wolfgram and Xiyan Zhang of Stratum Law LLC. Group Vertical, LLC appears to have represented itself — no separate law firm is identified in the case record for the defendant, which is notable in patent litigation and may have influenced the dynamics of the dispute.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Possibilities consistent with the facts include an informal settlement or licensing arrangement reached after filing, a strategic decision to refile in a different venue or with amended claims, or a reassessment of litigation merit. The without-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing order are consistent with an agreed resolution, but no settlement has been publicly confirmed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.