Shenzhen Quanxindi v. Schedule A: Broom Design Patent Settled in 64 Days
Shenzhen Quanxindi Technology Co. Ltd. filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against a Schedule A group of online marketplace sellers over its registered broom design (USD0991607S). The case resolved in just 64 days via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.
Design patent ambush: Quanxindi’s broom IP claim ends in rapid settlement
On October 14, 2024, Shenzhen Quanxindi Technology Co. Ltd., a Chinese consumer products company and holder of U.S. design patent USD0991607S covering an ornamental broom design, filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against a group of unnamed online sellers collectively designated as Schedule A defendants. This enforcement structure — common in e-commerce IP actions — targets multiple marketplace storefronts simultaneously, often seeking ex parte temporary restraining orders to freeze seller accounts before defendants can be identified.
The case closed on December 17, 2024, just 64 days after filing, via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice. The parties — Quanxindi and at least one identified defendant store — confirmed a settlement agreement by their counsel of record and the store owner. The with-prejudice designation means Quanxindi cannot refile the same claims against the settling defendants, providing those sellers with finality. Each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs and attorneys’ fees, a standard term in e-commerce Schedule A settlements.
A 64-day resolution is consistent with the rapid settlement dynamics typical of Schedule A litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, where plaintiffs often leverage account freezes and marketplace disruptions to accelerate defendant compliance. The financial terms of the underlying settlement agreement are not disclosed in the public record. It is unknown whether all originally named Schedule A defendants settled or whether some were dismissed separately, as is common in multi-defendant Schedule A proceedings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 64 days
64 days — well below the median Schedule A case duration in N.D. Illinois, suggesting swift settlement negotiations
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 settlement means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is a stipulated voluntary dismissal signed by all parties. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical element: it permanently extinguishes Quanxindi’s right to bring the same design patent claims against these specific defendants again. This is the standard vehicle for court-sanctioned settlement in federal IP litigation and does not constitute a merits adjudication by the court.
Settled — no merits rulingQuanxindi extracts a settlement — likely on confidential terms
By filing and swiftly settling, Quanxindi likely secured financial compensation or behavioural undertakings (e.g., delisting of infringing products) without extended litigation cost. The with-prejudice dismissal and mutual cost-bearing arrangement suggest a negotiated resolution rather than a capitulation. The confidential settlement terms — not disclosed in the public record — determine the true commercial outcome for the patent holder.
Confidential settlement termsSettling defendants gain finality — no further exposure on these claims
For the identified defendant store(s), the with-prejudice dismissal provides finality: Quanxindi cannot reinstate claims on the same patent for the same conduct. In Schedule A e-commerce litigation, defendants frequently face frozen marketplace accounts and payment holds; settlement is often the fastest path to restoring commercial operations. The mutual cost-bearing term avoids additional financial exposure beyond any agreed settlement amount.
Claim preclusion appliesSchedule A litigation remains a potent tool for e-commerce design IP holders
This case is consistent with a well-established enforcement pattern in N.D. Illinois: design patent holders use Schedule A multi-defendant complaints to pressure marketplace sellers at scale. A 64-day resolution demonstrates that the threat of account freezes and injunctive relief drives rapid settlements. Online sellers in the housewares and cleaning products categories should assess their product designs against active U.S. design patents held by Chinese OEM manufacturers.
E-commerce enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Quanxindi Technology Co. Ltd. | Company | Consumer products company — holder of design patent USD0991607S (ornamental broom)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers grouped as Schedule A defendantsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Depeng Bi | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Quanxindi Technology Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Konrad Val Sherinian | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Quanxindi Technology Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Quanxindi Technology Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jorge L. Alonso | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal is made pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring the signatures of all represented parties. The ‘with prejudice’ qualifier is dispositive: it bars Quanxindi from reasserting the same design patent claims against the settling defendants, granting those sellers claim preclusion. Critically, this is a negotiated exit — the court made no merits finding on infringement or validity of USD0991607S. The mutual cost-bearing provision is standard and does not signal relative negotiating strength.
USD0991607S — ornamental broom design patent
USD0991607S (application number US29/844711) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a broom. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture — here, the specific aesthetic form of the broom as depicted in the patent drawings. Protection is assessed under the ordinary observer test: would an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art designs, believe the accused product is substantially the same as the patented design.
Design patents on commodity household products such as brooms are increasingly used as offensive IP tools by Chinese OEM manufacturers who supply — and simultaneously compete with — global e-commerce sellers. USD0991607S grants Quanxindi the right to exclude others from making, selling, or importing brooms bearing the protected design in the U.S. market. Given the volume of broom and cleaning tool listings on Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, and Temu, this patent represents a meaningful enforcement asset in a high-SKU, price-sensitive product category.
Should you run an FTO against USD0991607S before selling brooms in the U.S.?
Any business sourcing, importing, or selling brooms or similar long-handled cleaning tools on U.S. e-commerce platforms should assess exposure to USD0991607S. Design patent infringement is strict — even independent creation is not a defence. If your product’s visual appearance is substantially similar to the Quanxindi design under the ordinary observer standard, you may face a Schedule A complaint, account freeze, and pressure to settle quickly without a merits hearing.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD0991607S against your product’s design, identify the claim scope from the patent drawings, surface prior art that could support a validity challenge, and flag related Quanxindi filings at the USPTO. Early clearance analysis is significantly cheaper than responding to a TRO in N.D. Illinois — where courts routinely grant ex parte account freezing orders within days of filing.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0991607S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar broom & household goods design patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore Schedule A design patent infringement cases involving household and cleaning products filed in the Northern District of Illinois, including comparable TRO and settlement patterns.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent IP landscape
Schedule A design patent actions in N.D. Illinois are accelerating. This case illustrates the speed and commercial leverage available to design IP holders.
Schedule A enforcement moves fast — sellers need proactive design clearance
A 64-day case lifecycle from filing to dismissal with prejudice leaves little time for defendants to mount a meaningful challenge. Online marketplace sellers in consumer goods categories should conduct design patent clearance searches before launching new products, particularly where Chinese OEM manufacturers hold U.S. design registrations on similar forms.
Design patents on everyday products carry real enforcement leverage
USD0991607S covers an ornamental broom design — a commodity product. This case signals that design protection is actively being asserted even in low-cost household goods. Any seller sourcing brooms or similar products from third-party manufacturers should verify whether the product form is covered by an active U.S. design registration prior to listing.
Shenzhen v Partnerships — key questions answered
USD0991607S (application no. US29/844711) is a U.S. design patent held by Shenzhen Quanxindi Technology Co. Ltd. covering the ornamental design of a broom. In case 1:24-cv-10193, Quanxindi asserted this patent against online marketplace sellers, claiming their broom listings infringed the protected visual design.
No. Case 1:24-cv-10193 was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) following a settlement agreement. Judge Jorge L. Alonso made no merits finding on infringement or the validity of USD0991607S. The design patent’s enforceability was not adjudicated.
Dismissed with prejudice means Quanxindi cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against the settling defendants arising from the same conduct. The defendants receive finality and claim preclusion. However, the dismissal does not prevent Quanxindi from suing other parties or pursuing different alleged infringers under the same patent.
Schedule A e-commerce enforcement cases typically resolve quickly because plaintiffs can obtain ex parte temporary restraining orders freezing defendants’ marketplace accounts and payment balances within days of filing. This commercial disruption creates strong settlement pressure. The 64-day resolution in this case is consistent with that dynamic — defendants face significant business interruption costs that often exceed the cost of settlement.
The defendants were collectively identified as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — a standard designation in N.D. Illinois e-commerce IP cases where defendant identities are initially sealed. The verdict confirms at least one named defendant store and its owner ultimately signed the settlement stipulation. The full list of defendant stores is contained in the Schedule A exhibit filed with the court.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.