Shenzhen Laiderui v. Zhang & Xia Men Ji Xin: LED Design Patent Dismissed Without Prejudice
Shenzhen Laiderui Lighting Technology filed suit in the Western District of Washington asserting design patent USD1008442S against two defendants over LEDIARY-branded LED products. After 226 days, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41 — leaving the door open for refiling.
LED design patent suit ends in voluntary withdrawal — refiling risk remains
Shenzhen Laiderui Lighting Technology Co Ltd, a Chinese LED lighting manufacturer, filed this infringement action on April 23, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington before Judge Jamal N. Whitehead. The suit asserted design patent USD1008442S — based on application US29/875556 — against individual defendant Zhifen Zhang and corporate co-defendant Xia Men Ji Xin Dian Zi Shang Wu You Xian Gong Si, targeting LEDIARY-branded LED products identified by ASINs B0CCV5B8SG and B0CCV31QX9.
On December 4, 2024, plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims against both defendants without prejudice. The case closed the following day. Because dismissal was taken before defendants had answered or moved for summary judgment, no court approval was required. Critically, ‘without prejudice’ means plaintiff is not barred from reasserting the same design patent claims against these defendants in a future action.
At 226 days, the case resolved without any substantive ruling on infringement or patent validity. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement was reached, a licensing arrangement was negotiated, or the plaintiff simply chose to exit litigation. The absence of defendant counsel of record throughout the proceeding suggests the defendants may never have formally appeared, which could have influenced the dismissal strategy — though the record does not confirm this.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 226 days
226 days — resolved before reaching trial or summary judgment, consistent with early-stage voluntary exits
Dismissed without prejudice: what this means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral exit before answer
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action as of right — without court approval — before the opposing party has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is the most plaintiff-friendly dismissal mechanism: it requires only a filed notice and takes effect immediately. No judicial finding on the merits is made, and no prejudice attaches to the defendants.
No merits adjudicationRefiling remains possible — but implications differ from ‘with prejudice’
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. This contrasts sharply with a ‘with prejudice’ dismissal, which operates as a final judgment on the merits and bars refiling. The public record here is explicit: the notice states ‘without prejudice,’ so Shenzhen Laiderui could reassert USD1008442S against these defendants or others at a later date.
Refiling risk persistsDefendants exit without liability — but face ongoing uncertainty
Neither Zhifen Zhang nor Xia Men Ji Xin faces any infringement finding, injunction, or damages award as a result of this dismissal. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, defendants cannot treat this as a final resolution. If they continue selling the accused LEDIARY products, they remain exposed to a refiled action. Obtaining a freedom-to-operate analysis or design-around strategy would be prudent given the unresolved patent.
No injunction, no damagesDesign patent enforcement in e-commerce: pattern to watch
This case is consistent with a broader pattern of Chinese LED lighting brands asserting U.S. design patents against competing sellers on Amazon and similar platforms. Voluntary dismissals without prejudice in such disputes often suggest parallel enforcement pressure — DMCA takedowns, platform complaints, or licensing discussions — rather than full litigation. IP teams monitoring the LED lighting and consumer electronics accessories space should track USD1008442S for subsequent enforcement actions.
Amazon marketplace IP riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Laiderui Lighting Technology Co Ltd | Company | LED lighting manufacturer — holder of design patent USD1008442S covering LED product ornamental designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Zhifen Zhang | Individual | Individual seller (Zhifen Zhang) and Chinese e-commerce entity (Xia Men Ji Xin) alleged to sell infringing LEDIARY LED productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Xia Men Ji Xin Dian Zi Shang Wu You Xian Gong Si | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam E Urbanczyk | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Laiderui Lighting Technology Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Philip P. Mann | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Laiderui Lighting Technology Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | AU LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Laiderui Lighting Technology Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mann Law Group PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Laiderui Lighting Technology Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jamal N Whitehead | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) precisely — indicating plaintiff acted before defendants served an answer or summary judgment motion. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ language is legally operative: no claim preclusion, no issue preclusion, and no bar to refiling attaches. The court made no finding on infringement or validity of USD1008442S. For the defendants, this is a procedural exit, not a vindication; for the plaintiff, full enforcement optionality over the design patent is preserved.
USD1008442S — LEDIARY LED lighting product ornamental design
USD1008442S is a U.S. design patent — filed under application number US29/875556 — covering the ornamental appearance of an LED lighting product sold under the LEDIARY brand. Design patents protect the distinctive visual characteristics of a product, not its functional attributes. Infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa: a design patent is infringed if an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art designs, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design.
In the competitive LED lighting accessories market — particularly among products sold via Amazon — design patent protection provides a meaningful enforcement lever. Even modest visual differentiation in product housing, lens shape, or form factor can fall within or outside the scope of a design patent claim. For competing sellers and manufacturers of LED lighting products, USD1008442S represents an active enforcement risk that warrants FTO analysis, particularly given the plaintiff’s willingness to litigate in U.S. federal court.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1008442S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling LED lighting products — especially through Amazon or other U.S. e-commerce channels — with visual characteristics resembling LEDIARY’s product line should consider a freedom-to-operate review against USD1008442S. The without-prejudice dismissal confirms the patent remains active and uncontested. Sellers who were not named in this action but carry similar product aesthetics face comparable exposure if the patent holder pursues broader enforcement.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to run automated design patent clearance searches, map ornamental claim scope against product images, and identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments. For LED lighting product teams, Eureka can flag design patent families held by Chinese manufacturers with U.S. enforcement histories — giving procurement and product development teams actionable IP risk intelligence before market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1008442S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LED lighting design patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related design patent infringement actions involving LED lighting products and Chinese cross-border e-commerce defendants in U.S. federal courts.
What this case signals for the LED lighting and e-commerce IP landscape
A without-prejudice exit preserves optionality for the patent holder — and leaves market uncertainty for competitors and platform sellers.
Design patent assertions in LED lighting are escalating on U.S. platforms
Shenzhen Laiderui’s use of a U.S. design patent to target specific Amazon ASINs reflects a growing enforcement model among Chinese lighting brands. Sellers of competing LED products in the Western District of Washington and nationally should conduct proactive FTO reviews against design patents in this category.
Rule 41 without-prejudice dismissals signal unresolved commercial disputes
When a plaintiff exits via Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without prejudice and no settlement is disclosed, the underlying commercial tension — pricing, market share, platform listings — typically persists. Monitor the patent holder’s enforcement history and any subsequent filings against the same or related defendants.
Shenzhen v Zhifen — key questions answered
A without-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not extinguish any claims. Shenzhen Laiderui retains the full right to refile infringement claims based on USD1008442S against these defendants or new parties, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. No merits ruling was made on infringement or validity.
USD1008442S (application US29/875556) is a U.S. design patent held by Shenzhen Laiderui Lighting Technology Co Ltd covering the ornamental design of an LED lighting product. In this case, it was asserted against LEDIARY-branded products listed on Amazon under ASINs B0CCV5B8SG and B0CCV31QX9.
The public docket records no counsel of record for either defendant — Zhifen Zhang or Xia Men Ji Xin Dian Zi Shang Wu You Xian Gong Si. This is common in cases targeting cross-border e-commerce sellers who may not have engaged U.S. legal representation. The plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal came before any formal defendant appearance.
Under Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, design patent infringement requires that an ordinary observer — familiar with prior art — would be deceived into believing the accused product is substantially the same as the patented ornamental design. For USD1008442S, this means comparing the solid-line elements of the patent drawing to accused LED product configurations. No such judicial comparison was made in this case before dismissal.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and assigned to Judge Jamal N. Whitehead. It was filed on April 23, 2024 and closed on December 5, 2024 following voluntary dismissal. No substantive rulings were issued by the court.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.