Shenzhen Kunshengze v. Schedule A Defendants: Finger Stretching Apparatus Design Patent Suit
Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting U.S. Design Patent USD0980990S covering a finger stretching apparatus against unnamed Schedule A defendants. The case closed in 110 days via voluntary dismissal, with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
Design patent enforcement against anonymous online sellers: a 110-day arc
On November 13, 2024, Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-11659) before Judge Edmond E. Chang. The plaintiff asserted U.S. Design Patent USD0980990S — covering the ornamental design of a finger stretching apparatus — against an anonymous group of defendants identified collectively as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,’ a filing structure commonly used to target multiple e-commerce sellers in a single action.
The case closed on March 3, 2025, when the plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss all remaining causes of action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The dismissal motion states that each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs and confirmed no remaining defendants existed in the action at the time of dismissal. The Basis of Termination is recorded as voluntary dismissal; beyond the motion language noting dismissal ‘without prejudice,’ the public record does not further specify the prejudice terms independently of that filing.
A resolution within 110 days is consistent with the pace of Schedule A design patent cases that settle or resolve informally before full merits adjudication — the plaintiff’s confirmation of ‘no remaining defendants’ suggests individual settlements or resolutions were reached with defendants prior to filing the dismissal motion. What drove each specific resolution — whether licensing, payment, store takedowns, or default — is not disclosed in the public record. The absence of any defendant counsel on record is typical of this enforcement structure.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 110 days
110 days from filing to closure — relatively swift resolution for a multi-defendant Schedule A action in the N.D. Ill.
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1) means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal explained
Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. It is a unilateral procedural tool. Here, plaintiff invoked it after confirming no defendants remained — consistent with pre-dismissal resolution of individual defendants through the course of the litigation.
Rule 41(a)(1) — plaintiff-initiatedWith or without prejudice? The record is silent
The dismissal motion uses the phrase ‘without prejudice,’ suggesting the plaintiff retains the right to refile claims. However, the formal Basis of Termination is recorded only as ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without independent specification. A dismissal without prejudice generally means the plaintiff could reassert claims against any defendant not individually resolved. A dismissal with prejudice would bar refiling. Parties relying on this record for FTO purposes should treat the prejudice status as unresolved without further diligence.
Prejudice status — review advisedNo merits ruling — defendants face no formal liability finding
The voluntary dismissal means no court issued a finding of infringement, validity, or invalidity of USD0980990S. Defendants who were individually resolved prior to the dismissal motion likely reached private agreements — the terms of which are not public. Any seller not named or resolved retains no formal protection from future enforcement of this design patent by the same or related plaintiffs.
No merits adjudicationDesign patent enforcement via Schedule A remains commercially active
The rapid resolution of this case is consistent with the broader pattern of Schedule A actions in N.D. Ill., where plaintiffs use design patents to pressure anonymous e-commerce sellers into settlement or platform removal. The finger stretching apparatus design remains enforceable — no invalidity finding was made. Online sellers and private-label importers in this product category should treat USD0980990S as an active enforcement risk.
Active design patent riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. | Company | E-commerce IP enforcement entity — holder of USD0980990S (finger stretching apparatus design)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A, | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified collectively on Schedule A to the complaint.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Depeng Bi | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Konrad Val Sherinian | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Edmond E. Chang | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal motion cites Rule 41(a)(1) and confirms ‘no remaining defendants’ — language that strongly suggests individual pre-dismissal resolutions were reached with each named defendant before the motion was filed. The phrase ‘without prejudice’ in the motion text suggests the plaintiff preserves refiling rights, though the formal docket entry records only ‘Voluntary dismissal.’ No court adjudicated the merits of the infringement claims or the validity of USD0980990S, leaving the design patent’s enforceability fully intact.
USD0980990S — ornamental design for a finger stretching apparatus
USD0980990S is a U.S. design patent (Application No. 29/814,406) protecting the ornamental appearance of a finger stretching apparatus — a rehabilitation or exercise device used to extend, stretch, or rehabilitate finger joints. U.S. design patents cover the non-functional, visual characteristics of a product. Protection scope is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: infringement occurs when an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would mistake the accused design for the patented one. Design patents of this type typically grant with a 15-year term from the date of grant.
The finger stretching and rehabilitation device market is served by numerous small manufacturers and importers, many of whom sell via Amazon, AliExpress, and similar platforms — precisely the defendant profile targeted in this action. A single design patent in this category can be asserted against dozens of sellers simultaneously via the Schedule A structure. The enforceability of USD0980990S is commercially significant: no invalidity finding has been made, and the absence of any inter partes review or post-grant review challenge on the public record means the patent faces no pending institutional validity challenge.
Should you run an FTO against USD0980990S?
Any company designing, importing, private-labelling, or retailing finger stretching apparatus products in the U.S. market should treat USD0980990S as an active enforcement risk. The plaintiff’s use of the Schedule A enforcement model — targeting large numbers of sellers simultaneously — suggests a willingness to litigate broadly. Even sellers who were not named in this action remain exposed if their product’s ornamental design is similar to the patented design under the ordinary observer standard.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product teams to map the visual claim scope of USD0980990S against your product’s design, identify prior art that may constrain the patent’s enforceable scope, and surface related design patents in the same product category that could present additional risk. Proactive FTO analysis before market entry or new product launch is significantly less costly than defending an N.D. Ill. Schedule A infringement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0980990S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable design patent infringement actions in the Northern District of Illinois targeting e-commerce sellers of consumer health and rehabilitation products.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent enforcement landscape
Schedule A design patent litigation in N.D. Ill. continues to be a high-velocity enforcement mechanism — this case resolved in under four months.
USD0980990S remains valid and enforceable — no court has ruled otherwise
The voluntary dismissal produced no merits ruling on validity or infringement. Any seller, importer, or distributor of finger stretching apparatus products should treat this design patent as fully enforceable. A freedom-to-operate review against USD0980990S is advisable before entering or continuing in this product category.
Schedule A structure signals a repeat-enforcement plaintiff posture
Plaintiffs using the Schedule A anonymous defendant structure in N.D. Ill. typically file multiple actions across product categories. The 110-day resolution with no remaining defendants suggests coordinated pre-dismissal resolutions — a model that signals the plaintiff or related entities may file similar actions in adjacent product categories or against new market entrants.
Shenzhen v Partnerships — key questions answered
USD0980990S (Application No. 29/814,406) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a finger stretching apparatus. In Case No. 1:24-cv-11659, plaintiff Shenzhen Kunshengze asserted this patent against anonymous Schedule A e-commerce defendants in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of the product’s visual design.
Rule 41(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without court order before the defendant files an answer or summary judgment motion. Here, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all remaining defendants, stating each party bears its own costs. The motion uses ‘without prejudice’ language, which typically preserves the right to refile, though the formal docket entry records only ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without independent prejudice specification.
No. The voluntary dismissal produced no merits ruling. No court determined whether the defendants infringed USD0980990S or whether the patent is valid. The patent remains fully enforceable, and no inter partes review or post-grant review challenge appears on the public record.
The dismissal motion confirmed ‘no remaining defendants’ at the time of filing, which strongly suggests individual pre-dismissal resolutions — such as private settlements, licensing agreements, or platform takedowns — were reached with the Schedule A defendants during the litigation. This pattern is common in N.D. Ill. Schedule A design patent actions, where the enforcement structure is designed to pressure rapid resolution.
Yes. The dismissal without a validity or non-infringement ruling means USD0980990S remains enforceable. Sellers whose products’ ornamental appearance is similar to the patented design under the ordinary observer test remain exposed to future enforcement actions. A freedom-to-operate analysis and, where possible, a design-around review are advisable for any company active in this product category.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.