Shenzhen Xiang Wang v. Vikingstrength: Wrist Roller Design Patent Dismissed in 48 Days
Shenzhen Xiang Wang Technology Co., Ltd. filed suit against Vikingstrength, LLC in the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of design patent USD1052668S, covering a wrist roller fitness device. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice just 48 days after filing — one of the shortest resolutions seen at this court level.
Wrist Roller Design Patent Suit Ends Before Defendant Responds
On 5 December 2024, Shenzhen Xiang Wang Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese consumer-goods and fitness-accessories company, filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Vikingstrength, LLC. The asserted patent, USD1052668S (application no. US29/781958), is a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a wrist roller — a cylindrical forearm-training device used in strength and rehabilitation contexts.
The case closed on 22 January 2025, just 48 days after filing, when Shenzhen Xiang Wang invoked Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice against Vikingstrength, LLC. A dismissal without prejudice means the lawsuit is terminated but the plaintiff retains the right to refile the same claims in future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. No answer or motion for summary judgment appears to have been filed by the defendant before dismissal.
The speed of resolution — under seven weeks — suggests the parties may have reached a private commercial arrangement, or that the plaintiff reassessed its litigation strategy after filing. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, licensing agreement, or cease-and-desist compliance. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Vikingstrength faces ongoing legal uncertainty: the design patent claim has not been adjudicated on the merits and could theoretically be reasserted.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 48 days
48-day lifespan — well below the N.D. Illinois median for patent infringement cases
Without-prejudice dismissal: what it means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) lets a plaintiff exit before the defendant answers
Under Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This procedural tool gives the filing party a clean exit at minimal cost — the case is removed from the docket with no merits ruling attached.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the claim survives dismissal
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means the plaintiff has not forfeited the underlying infringement claim. Shenzhen Xiang Wang retains the right to refile against Vikingstrength on the same design patent, provided the applicable statute of limitations has not expired. This is distinct from a ‘with prejudice’ dismissal, which would bar any future suit on the same claims. The public record is silent on whether any settlement or licensing arrangement underpins this exit.
Refile right preservedVikingstrength exits — but faces residual legal uncertainty
Vikingstrength, LLC avoids a merits finding against it, but the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means it cannot treat the matter as resolved. The design patent USD1052668S remains enforceable, and the plaintiff retains the option to refile. Vikingstrength should consider whether its wrist roller product design has been modified or whether a freedom-to-operate analysis or licensing discussion would provide more durable protection.
No permanent bar to refileDesign patent enforcement in fitness accessories remains live
This case is consistent with a broader enforcement pattern seen among Chinese e-commerce and consumer-goods manufacturers asserting U.S. design patents against domestic sellers of competing fitness products. The quick dismissal without prejudice leaves the IP landscape unsettled: USD1052668S has not been invalidated or narrowed, and competitors in the wrist roller and forearm-training equipment market should treat it as an active enforcement risk.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Xiang Wang Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese fitness accessories manufacturer — holder of design patent USD1052668SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Vikingstrength, LLC | Company | Vikingstrength, LLC — U.S.-based fitness equipment retailer or brandSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ruoting Men | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Xiang Wang Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tao Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Xiang Wang Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tianyun Ji | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Xiang Wang Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Glacier Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Xiang Wang Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John Robert Blakey | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The plaintiff’s invocation of Rule 41(a)(1) — dismissing ‘without prejudice as to Vikingstrength, LLC’ — is precise and deliberate language. The phrase ‘as to Vikingstrength’ confirms the dismissal is defendant-specific, preserving any potential claims against other parties. The absence of a prejudice qualifier on future actions is the critical commercial point: USD1052668S has not been tested on validity or infringement, leaving both parties’ positions legally open.
USD1052668S — Wrist Roller Ornamental Design Patent
USD1052668S, filed under application number US29/781958, is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a wrist roller — a cylindrical forearm-strengthening device typically comprising a central rod or axle, a rolling cylinder, and an attached resistance cord or weight. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of a functional article, not its utility. The scope of protection is determined by the patent’s drawings, making visual similarity the central test in any infringement analysis.
In the highly competitive fitness accessories and e-commerce space, design patents have become a primary enforcement tool for manufacturers seeking to differentiate products that are functionally similar but visually distinct. USD1052668S is strategically significant because wrist rollers are widely sold through online marketplaces with minimal product differentiation, creating conditions where design patent claims can be asserted against a broad range of competing SKUs. Sellers and importers of wrist roller products operating in the U.S. market should treat this patent as an active commercial risk until its scope is judicially clarified.
Should you run an FTO against USD1052668S before selling wrist rollers in the U.S.?
Any company — whether a domestic brand, an Amazon seller, or an importer — currently offering or planning to offer wrist roller products in the United States should assess its exposure to USD1052668S. Because design patent infringement turns on whether an ‘ordinary observer’ would find the accused product substantially similar in overall appearance to the patented design, even minor visual similarities can create liability. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is prepared to file in U.S. federal court.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim drawings of USD1052668S against your product’s visual design, flag prior art that may narrow or invalidate the design claims, and identify related design applications in the same patent family. For procurement, product, and legal teams sourcing fitness accessories, running this analysis before market entry — or before responding to a cease-and-desist — is a materially lower-cost step than defending an infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1052668S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Cases: Fitness Equipment in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable design patent infringement actions involving fitness accessories and consumer goods filed in the Northern District of Illinois federal court.
What this case signals for the fitness accessories design patent landscape
Short-lived infringement actions like this one often signal licensing leverage plays — and the without-prejudice exit keeps that option open.
Without-prejudice exits preserve enforcement leverage for patent holders
Shenzhen Xiang Wang’s Rule 41(a)(1) exit before Vikingstrength answered is a tactically neutral move that costs the plaintiff little. It preserves the option to refile, negotiate, or pursue other defendants. Companies in the wrist roller and fitness-device sector should not interpret this dismissal as the end of enforcement activity around USD1052668S.
Design patents on fitness accessories are a growing enforcement vector
Chinese IP holders are increasingly using U.S. design patents to target Amazon and e-commerce sellers of competing products. The N.D. Illinois, with its developed patent docket, is a favoured venue. Product teams and procurement managers sourcing fitness accessories should conduct design clearance searches before listing competing products in U.S. markets.
Shenzhen v Vikingstrength — key questions answered
It means the case was terminated but the plaintiff retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against Vikingstrength in the future. No merits ruling was made on validity or infringement of USD1052668S. The patent remains enforceable and the claim is not extinguished by this dismissal.
USD1052668S protects the ornamental design — the visual appearance — of a wrist roller, a cylindrical fitness device used for forearm and grip strength training. The patent was filed under application number US29/781958. Design patents protect visual characteristics, not the functional utility of the product.
The case closed 48 days after filing, before Vikingstrength filed any answer or motion. This timeline is consistent with a private commercial resolution — such as a settlement, licensing agreement, or product withdrawal — though the public record does not confirm any such arrangement. Plaintiffs also sometimes reassess litigation strategy after initial filing.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the same infringement action, provided the applicable statute of limitations has not lapsed. The design patent USD1052668S was not invalidated or adjudicated in this proceeding, preserving the plaintiff’s full enforcement rights.
The case, filed as 1:24-cv-12486, was assigned to Judge John Robert Blakey in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It was filed on 5 December 2024 and closed on 22 January 2025. Shenzhen Xiang Wang was represented by Glacier Law LLP.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.