Shenzhen Sunwell v. Schedule A Defendants: Swivel Chair Design Patent Dismissed Without Prejudice
Shenzhen Sunwell Industrial Co. Ltd. brought a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois asserting USD926487S — a swivel chair ornamental design — against anonymous online marketplace sellers. The case closed in 78 days without a merits ruling, with two named defendants dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Schedule A Design Patent Case Ends on Jurisdiction, Not Merits
On February 24, 2025, Shenzhen Sunwell Industrial Co. Ltd., a Chinese manufacturer, filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, asserting infringement of USD926487S — an ornamental design patent covering a swivel chair — against a group of anonymous online sellers identified on a Schedule A, a format commonly used in e-commerce enforcement actions targeting marketplace storefronts.
The case closed on May 13, 2025, after 78 days. Two specifically identified defendants — HILLGA (No. 1) and ZZD (No. 2) — had been dismissed without prejudice approximately one month prior to final closure, on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff subsequently sought reconsideration after obtaining Amazon sales data purportedly showing both defendants made sales to Illinois customers before the complaint was filed. Judge Jenkins denied the motion, declining to reopen a case where all other matters had been resolved.
The rapid resolution — under three months — suggests that most Schedule A defendants either defaulted, settled individually, or were dismissed early, leaving only the two jurisdiction-contested parties at the close. The court’s reasoning is notable: personal jurisdiction had already been resolved without prejudice, and new evidence does not automatically revive a dismissed matter within the same action. The merits of the design patent infringement claim were never adjudicated, leaving USD926487S untested in adversarial litigation.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 78 days
78 days — well under the typical Schedule A case resolution window of 6–18 months
Dismissed without prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Dismissal without prejudice leaves the door open to refile
A dismissal without prejudice is a procedural termination that does not resolve the underlying claims on their merits. Unlike a dismissal with prejudice, it does not bar the plaintiff from bringing the same claims again in a new action. Here, the court expressly noted that Shenzhen Sunwell is free to re-initiate claims against HILLGA and ZZD — but must do so in a separate cause of action, not by keeping this case alive.
No merits adjudicationSunwell retains refiling rights but faces a personal jurisdiction hurdle
Shenzhen Sunwell was not foreclosed from pursuing HILLGA or ZZD — the dismissal without prejudice preserves that option. However, to succeed in a new Illinois action, Sunwell must establish personal jurisdiction from the outset, likely relying on the Amazon sales data it surfaced too late in this proceeding. The strength of that jurisdictional argument will be central to any refiled case.
Refiling remains viableHILLGA and ZZD escape this action but remain exposed
The two named defendants secured dismissal on personal jurisdiction grounds — a procedural victory, not an adjudication of non-infringement. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, neither defendant can claim res judicata protection against a refiled suit. If Sunwell’s Amazon transaction data is sufficient to establish minimum contacts with Illinois, a new action could succeed where jurisdiction previously failed.
No immunity from re-suitSchedule A design actions hinge on early jurisdictional groundwork
This case illustrates a recurring challenge in Schedule A enforcement: anonymous defendants may later be identified as sellers with only minimal, provable contacts to the chosen forum. Plaintiffs pursuing marketplace infringers should proactively obtain platform sales data — via third-party subpoena or Amazon Brand Registry tools — before filing, to anchor personal jurisdiction arguments from day one and avoid late-stage dismissals.
Jurisdictional due diligence criticalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Sunwell Industrial Co. Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer furniture manufacturer — holder of USD926487S swivel chair design patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unidentified Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous Schedule A online marketplace sellers, including HILLGA and ZZDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas Paul Zalany | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Sunwell Industrial Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Yizhou Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Sunwell Industrial Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Calfee Halter & Griswold, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Sunwell Industrial Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s minute entry denying reconsideration is tightly reasoned: the prior dismissal without prejudice was already final, and the emergence of new Amazon sales data does not constitute grounds to reopen a resolved matter. The ruling reinforces that ‘without prejudice’ operates as a forward-looking remedy — not a mechanism to relitigate venue within the same case file. Sunwell’s path forward is a new complaint, not reconsideration.
USD926487S — Ornamental Design for a Swivel Chair
USD926487S (Application No. 29/703,667) is a US design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a swivel chair. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture — in this case, the overall aesthetic configuration of the chair as depicted in the patent drawings. Design patents have a 15-year term from grant and are infringed by any product that, to an ordinary observer, appears substantially similar to the patented design.
In the competitive swivel chair and office furniture market — dominated by high-volume Amazon listings and overseas manufacturers — design patents are a strategically efficient enforcement tool. A single USD design registration can support injunctive relief and damages claims across hundreds of marketplace listings. Shenzhen Sunwell’s assertion of USD926487S against Schedule A sellers suggests active design IP strategy targeting Amazon distribution channels, a pattern increasingly common among Chinese OEM furniture brands with US design registrations.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD926487S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling swivel chairs — particularly those distributed through Amazon or other US online marketplaces — should evaluate their exposure to USD926487S. Because the patent’s infringement standard is the ‘ordinary observer’ test focused on overall ornamental appearance, even minor design similarities can create risk. The patent has not been invalidated or adjudicated on the merits, meaning it retains full enforceability.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product teams to compare their swivel chair designs against USD926487S’s visual claim scope, identify design-around opportunities, and surface any pending continuation or related design applications in Sunwell’s portfolio. For marketplace sellers receiving cease-and-desist notices or Amazon IP complaints referencing this patent, a rapid FTO assessment can inform response strategy and any counter-filing decisions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0926487S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Cases in the Northern District of Illinois
Explore related furniture and consumer product design patent infringement actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois using the Schedule A anonymous defendant format.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent enforcement landscape
Schedule A litigation is a high-volume enforcement tool — but this case exposes a structural weakness when jurisdictional facts are assembled too late.
Personal jurisdiction must be locked down before filing Schedule A suits
Judge Jenkins’s denial of reconsideration signals that courts will not hold cases open to accommodate post-dismissal evidence gathering. Plaintiffs must conduct Amazon and marketplace sales data discovery — ideally via pre-suit subpoena or brand protection platform data — before choosing a forum and filing, or risk losing named defendants to early dismissal.
USD design patents remain popular enforcement tools for Chinese OEM manufacturers
Shenzhen Sunwell’s use of a US design patent to police furniture design on Amazon reflects a wider trend of Chinese manufacturers actively asserting US IP rights against competing marketplace sellers. Design patents — with a lower prosecution bar than utility patents — are frequently the instrument of choice for product-specific enforcement in the e-commerce channel.
Shenzhen v Partnerships — key questions answered
Shenzhen Sunwell filed a design patent infringement suit in the Northern District of Illinois in February 2025 asserting USD926487S (swivel chair design) against anonymous online sellers. Two named defendants — HILLGA and ZZD — were dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. After Sunwell sought reconsideration based on newly obtained Amazon sales data, Judge Jenkins denied the motion and the case closed in May 2025 after 78 days.
A dismissal without prejudice means Sunwell’s claims against HILLGA and ZZD were not resolved on the merits. Sunwell retains the right to refile those claims in a new lawsuit, provided it can establish personal jurisdiction — potentially using the Amazon transaction data it obtained after the dismissal in this case. The design patent itself remains valid and enforceable.
HILLGA and ZZD were dismissed approximately one month before the case closed due to lack of personal jurisdiction — meaning the court found insufficient grounds to exercise authority over those defendants in Illinois at that time. Sunwell later obtained Amazon sales records suggesting both defendants sold to Illinois customers before the complaint was filed, but the court declined to reopen the matter.
USD926487S (US Application No. 29/703,667) is a US design patent held by Shenzhen Sunwell Industrial Co. Ltd. covering the ornamental design of a swivel chair. Design patents protect the visual appearance — not the functional features — of an article of manufacture, and are infringed when an accused product appears substantially similar to an ordinary observer. The patent has not been challenged or adjudicated on validity.
A Schedule A lawsuit is an e-commerce enforcement mechanism where a plaintiff files suit against a group of anonymous online sellers identified only by marketplace storefront names listed on an attached Schedule A exhibit. Common in the Northern District of Illinois, these suits often seek temporary restraining orders and asset freezes against Amazon, eBay, or Alibaba sellers, with defendant identities revealed through court-ordered platform discovery. Personal jurisdiction over individual sellers can be contested if their connection to the forum state is limited.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.