Shenzhen Shisanlang v. Nancy Protectz et al.: Furniture Sock Patent Dismissed for Lack of Prosecution
Shenzhen Shisanlang Technology Co Ltd filed suit in the Central District of California asserting design patent USD968,939S — covering furniture sock products — against over 60 online marketplace defendants. The court dismissed the entire action after plaintiff failed to serve defendants or respond to an order to show cause within 120 days of filing.
Design patent action against 60+ sellers ends before it begins
On May 6, 2024, Shenzhen Shisanlang Technology Co Ltd, a Chinese consumer goods company, filed a design patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff asserted U.S. Design Patent USD968,939S (Application No. 29/748645), which covers an ornamental design for a furniture sock — the protective fabric coverings placed over furniture legs. Named defendants included Nancy Protectz, LOVE Feng, Altrenotti, and more than 55 additional online marketplace sellers, many operating under informal storefronts consistent with e-commerce platform listings.
The case was dismissed on September 3, 2024, under the court’s inherent authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution. The court issued an order to show cause no later than August 30, 2024, giving the plaintiff an opportunity to demonstrate progress — specifically, proof of service on all defendants — but plaintiff filed no timely response. The court accordingly dismissed the action against all defendants. No merits ruling was issued, no claim construction occurred, and the patent’s validity was never adjudicated.
The 120-day lifecycle suggests the plaintiff may have encountered difficulty serving a large and dispersed group of defendants, several of whom appear to operate under pseudonymous or informal seller identities. The absence of any response to the show-cause order is notable; it leaves open whether the filing was a litigation strategy to extract early settlements, or whether service logistics simply proved unmanageable. The public record is silent on whether any pre-dismissal settlements were reached with individual defendants.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 120 days
120 days — resolved before reaching service of process on any defendant
Dismissed for lack of prosecution: what the ruling means for both parties
Dismissed for failure to prosecute — no merits ruling
A dismissal for lack of prosecution occurs when a plaintiff fails to advance the case — here, by not serving defendants and not responding to the court’s show-cause order. The dismissal is procedural, not substantive: the court never evaluated whether USD968,939S was infringed or valid. The Basis of Termination is recorded as ‘Case Dismissed’ without specifying with or without prejudice, meaning the public record does not confirm re-filing rights.
Procedural dismissalWith or without prejudice? The record is silent
When a case is dismissed for lack of prosecution, courts may dismiss with or without prejudice depending on the circumstances. A with-prejudice dismissal would bar refiling against the same defendants on the same patent. A without-prejudice dismissal would preserve that option. The termination record here does not specify which applies. Plaintiff and defendants alike should treat the distinction as legally significant — counsel should review the actual court order for clarification before advising on re-filing strategy.
Prejudice status unconfirmedDefendants face no judgment — but patent threat persists
All named defendants — including Nancy Protectz, LOVE Feng, Altrenotti, and 55+ marketplace sellers — are relieved of this specific action with no infringement finding against them. However, USD968,939S remains an active granted design patent. Defendants who continue selling furniture sock products consistent with the patented ornamental design remain potentially exposed to a refiled or separate enforcement action by the same plaintiff or any future patent holder.
No infringement findingDesign patent enforcement against marketplace sellers: execution risk is real
This case is consistent with a broader wave of Chinese design patent holders asserting rights against large cohorts of e-commerce marketplace defendants in U.S. federal court. The collapse here — before service was even effected — suggests that multi-defendant omnibus filings carry significant logistical and procedural risk. Sellers operating on Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or similar platforms should monitor their product listings against design patents in the furniture accessories category.
E-commerce enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Shisanlang Technology Co Ltd | Company | Chinese consumer goods company — holder of design patent USD968,939S for furniture socksSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nancy Protectz | Individual | 60+ online marketplace sellers of furniture sock products, operating under informal storefrontsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | LOVE Feng | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Altrenotti | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | CWRMLA | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Hayafir | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others too numerous to list: agnigros_96, fodje_3, VEPTW, Guziyu Children Clothing Life, NB, LinMao, Mingyiq inc, KABUDA, dingdangdang, sellershuang, BTOER Home, Hiwego Shop, Buyers Boom, dou ma ma, SOFEIYA HOME, LIlidafa, Men s and women s clothing store, Xinlie, mingriz-9, Yafix, Hihomeking, Little T Home, mingti_57, Langming Home Decoration, Jagowa, ACIRAE, Haimni, Beauty Closet, Pack of Adventure, Sunshine Household, Benafini, The most home life, Brother furniture seat foot, money fighting, Lansi Home Furnishings, MoreFarther, mengkeshop, KAJOVE, MYIDEAL, Beauty’s Closet, Hanifel, Holly Tree, AboutUs Store, Honor of the King, Johnsons small shop, Beauty Home, Worry Relieving Shop, upforbest, shuangcn, CRULO Daily Necessities, Outdoor Goodies, Treasures by Jim, Sucyfini | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Smartphone | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Sunny Domain | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Suyin | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Wule_15 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Y84926′ shop | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zhuo Li | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Shisanlang Technology Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Offices Of Li And Yang | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Shisanlang Technology Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s dismissal order is terse and procedural: plaintiff was given a clear deadline — proof of service by August 30, 2024 — and failed to meet it. The phrase ‘lack of prosecution’ is a judicial finding that the plaintiff abandoned active pursuit of the case, not a finding on the merits of infringement or patent validity. The order closes the case entirely, covering all remaining defendants. No partial judgments or carve-outs are noted. The scope of dismissal is total as to all parties named in the action.
USD968,939S — Ornamental Design for a Furniture Sock
U.S. Design Patent USD968,939S, filed under Application No. 29/748645, protects the ornamental design of a furniture sock — a fabric or textile sleeve placed over furniture legs to prevent floor scratches and reduce noise. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the visual, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture. The ‘D’ prefix and ‘USD’ designation confirm this is a design patent, not a utility patent — meaning claim scope is defined entirely by the drawings, not written functional claims.
Furniture socks occupy a commodity-level product category heavily populated by Chinese manufacturers and sold widely on U.S. e-commerce platforms. Despite the low unit value, design patent enforcement in this space has grown as rights holders seek to leverage U.S. court processes against competing sellers. USD968,939S gives its holder a tool to challenge products whose ornamental appearance is substantially similar to the patented design — assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test. Competitors and importers sourcing visually similar products should treat this patent as an active enforcement asset.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD968,939S?
Any company importing, distributing, or listing furniture socks, furniture leg caps, or similar floor-protection accessories on U.S. marketplaces should assess their exposure to USD968,939S. Design patent infringement is determined by whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product’s ornamental appearance substantially similar to the patented design — even minor aesthetic differences may not be sufficient to avoid liability. The enforcement action here targeted over 60 sellers simultaneously, signalling an aggressive portfolio approach.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental design landscape for furniture accessories, identify design patents with overlapping visual scope, and flag pending applications that could affect your product line. For marketplace sellers and importers sourcing from Chinese manufacturers, Eureka can also identify the original applicant’s broader design filing activity — helping predict where the next enforcement wave may land before it reaches your storefront.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0968939S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases against e-commerce marketplace sellers
Cases involving design patent enforcement against multi-defendant marketplace seller cohorts in the Central District of California — including furniture and home goods categories.
What this case signals for the furniture accessory IP landscape
A fast collapse on procedural grounds does not extinguish the underlying design patent — and that has real implications for marketplace sellers and IP teams.
USD968,939S remains enforceable despite the dismissal
The court’s dismissal was procedural, not a ruling on validity or infringement. The design patent covering ornamental furniture sock design retains its full legal force. Any seller whose products match the claimed ornamental design remains at risk of a future action — whether by Shenzhen Shisanlang or a successor rights holder.
Multi-defendant e-commerce filings require airtight service planning
Filing against 60+ pseudonymous marketplace sellers is a legitimate enforcement tactic, but this case shows the risk of logistical failure. Courts in the Central District of California will not wait indefinitely. Plaintiffs must have a credible service-of-process strategy — including Hague Convention procedures for foreign sellers — before filing.
Shenzhen v Nancy — key questions answered
The case was dismissed for lack of prosecution on September 3, 2024. Plaintiff Shenzhen Shisanlang Technology Co Ltd filed suit in the Central District of California asserting design patent USD968,939S against over 60 defendants. After the court issued a show-cause order requiring proof of service by August 30, 2024, plaintiff filed no response and the court dismissed the action against all defendants.
Yes. The dismissal was purely procedural — for failure to prosecute — and does not constitute a ruling on patent validity or infringement. USD968,939S remains a granted U.S. design patent with full legal force. Sellers of furniture sock products with ornamental designs substantially similar to the patented design remain potentially liable under a future action.
All named defendants are relieved of this specific lawsuit with no adverse judgment against them. However, the dismissal’s prejudice status — whether with or without prejudice — is not explicitly stated in the public record. A without-prejudice dismissal would allow the plaintiff to refile. Defendants should review the actual court order to confirm their exposure to potential refiling.
USD968,939S covers the ornamental design of a furniture sock — a fabric or textile protective cover for furniture legs, used to prevent floor scratching and reduce noise. As a design patent, the scope of protection is defined entirely by the patent’s drawings and is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test for infringement purposes, not functional claims.
Filing a single omnibus action against multiple marketplace seller-defendants is a cost-efficient enforcement strategy: it consolidates docketing fees, allows a plaintiff to send simultaneous demand signals, and — in practice — often generates early settlements before the case proceeds to service or substantive litigation. The Central District of California is a common venue for such actions due to its jurisdiction over many U.S.-based marketplace operators and its established IP litigation infrastructure.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.