Shenzhen Xingxia v. Schedule A Defendants: Shelf Design Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Shenzhen Xingxia Trading Co., Ltd. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting design patent USD1034007S — covering a shelf — against anonymous marketplace defendants. After 186 days, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), with each party bearing its own costs.
Shelf Design Patent Action Ends in With-Prejudice Dismissal
On September 12, 2024, Shenzhen Xingxia Trading Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:24-cv-08339, before Judge Jorge L. Alonso. The complaint asserted design patent USD1034007S — covering the ornamental appearance of a shelf — against a group of unnamed defendants identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule A,’ a filing structure commonly used in e-commerce brand-protection suits targeting online marketplace sellers.
The case closed on March 17, 2025, 186 days after filing. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all causes of action with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically naming MOGONICE-US DIRECT (appearing twice on Schedule A as entries 7 and 8). The motion noted that these defendants had not appeared, filed an answer, or moved for summary judgment. A with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes the plaintiff’s right to bring the same claims against those defendants again, representing a permanent end to this enforcement action.
The 186-day duration and with-prejudice terms suggest the litigation concluded before any substantive judicial engagement — consistent with a negotiated resolution, a decision to abandon enforcement, or a strategic concession. The public record does not disclose whether any consideration changed hands. The cost-neutral order — each party bears its own fees — is standard in Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissals where no settlement terms are publicly stated, though it may also reflect a broader agreement reached off the record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 186 days
186 days — faster than the median N.D. Illinois patent case, suggesting resolution before substantive litigation
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice: what the Rule 41(a)(1) filing means
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice — claims permanently extinguished
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 answered or moved for summary judgment. Here, plaintiff invoked this rule to dismiss all claims with prejudice — meaning the same claims against these specific defendants cannot be refiled. The court issued no substantive ruling on the merits of the design patent.
Rule 41(a)(1) — voluntary, with prejudiceWith prejudice: a permanent bar, not a procedural pause
A dismissal with prejudice is legally distinct from one without prejudice. Without prejudice, a plaintiff retains the right to refile; with prejudice, the claims are permanently barred against those defendants under res judicata. The public record in this case explicitly states ‘with prejudice,’ so there is no ambiguity: Shenzhen Xingxia has permanently relinquished its infringement claims against MOGONICE-US DIRECT under USD1034007S in this action.
Permanent bar — cannot refileMOGONICE-US DIRECT exits litigation without a merits ruling
The named defendants — MOGONICE-US DIRECT (Schedule A entries 7 and 8) — never appeared in the case or filed a response. Despite this, they benefit from the with-prejudice dismissal: Shenzhen Xingxia cannot reassert these same infringement claims against them in a future suit. No finding of infringement or non-infringement was made, leaving the validity of USD1034007S judicially untested against these parties.
No merits ruling — claims barredDesign patent enforcement via Schedule A: strategic limits of with-prejudice exits
Schedule A litigation is a high-volume enforcement strategy used frequently in N.D. Illinois against online sellers. A with-prejudice dismissal against specific defendants, without a damages award or injunction, suggests the enforcement objective was either met off-record or abandoned. Other Schedule A defendants not named in this dismissal motion may remain exposed. Competitors and sellers in the shelf product category should note that USD1034007S remains a live, unadjudicated design patent.
Design patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Xingxia Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese e-commerce trading company — holder of design patent USD1034007S (shelf ornamental design)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers (Schedule A defendants), specifically MOGONICE-US DIRECTSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Depeng Bi | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Xingxia Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Konrad Val Sherinian | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Xingxia Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Xingxia Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jorge L. Alonso | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1) filing identifies MOGONICE-US DIRECT by name and confirms that these defendants had not appeared or responded in the action. The explicit ‘with prejudice’ language is significant: it is not a default that favours the plaintiff but a permanent concession of the claims. The cost-neutral fee order — each party bearing its own — is procedurally standard under Rule 41(a)(1) but forecloses any fee recovery by the defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 285. No merits ruling was issued; the design patent’s validity and infringement scope remain adjudicated solely by the patent office record.
USD1034007S — Ornamental Design for a Shelf
USD1034007S is a U.S. design patent granted on application number 29/860736, covering the ornamental appearance of a shelf. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the non-functional visual characteristics of a manufactured article — not its utility. The scope of protection is defined by the patent’s drawings, and infringement is assessed using the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design. The patent is held by Shenzhen Xingxia Trading Co., Ltd.
In the e-commerce shelf and storage accessories market, design patent enforcement has intensified as Chinese trading companies increasingly register U.S. design patents to protect product aesthetics against copycat sellers on Amazon and similar platforms. USD1034007S represents a commercially significant ornamental asset in that context. The patent has not been subjected to inter partes review or any invalidation proceeding based on this case record. Competitors and marketplace sellers offering visually similar shelf products should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk and conduct freedom-to-operate analysis before launching new SKUs.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1034007S?
Any company, brand, or online marketplace seller developing or sourcing shelf products with ornamental designs that may resemble the visual configuration covered by USD1034007S should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis before commercialisation. This is particularly relevant for: Amazon third-party sellers in the home organisation and storage category; private-label brands sourcing shelf products from Chinese manufacturers; and retailers listing shelf SKUs that share visual characteristics with the patented design. The ordinary observer standard means even unintentional similarity can create infringement exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual and technical scope of USD1034007S against your product design portfolio, flag prior art that may limit the patent’s effective scope, and identify other design patents held by Shenzhen Xingxia Trading Co., Ltd. that could represent additional enforcement risk. Eureka’s litigation monitoring tools also allow you to track new Schedule A filings by this plaintiff in N.D. Illinois, giving your legal and product teams early warning before a TRO or asset freeze is sought.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1034007S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois
Design patent Schedule A enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois follow recognisable patterns — explore comparable cases involving ornamental product designs and marketplace defendants.
What this case signals for e-commerce design patent enforcement in N.D. Illinois
Schedule A design patent cases in N.D. Illinois often resolve quickly and quietly — this case is consistent with that pattern.
USD1034007S remains live and enforceable against other defendants
The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes claims only against the named defendants (MOGONICE-US DIRECT). It does not affect the patent’s validity or Shenzhen Xingxia’s ability to assert USD1034007S against other shelf product sellers. Online marketplace vendors in this product category should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk.
Schedule A cases often settle before defendants appear — monitor for TROs
N.D. Illinois is a preferred venue for Schedule A IP enforcement partly due to its willingness to issue temporary restraining orders and asset freezes early in proceedings. The fact that defendants here never appeared is consistent with a pattern where early TRO leverage — or its absence — drives rapid resolution. Companies selling shelf products on Amazon or similar platforms should audit their exposure proactively.
Shenzhen v Partnerships — key questions answered
The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all infringement claims against MOGONICE-US DIRECT with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1). This means Shenzhen Xingxia cannot refile these same claims against those defendants. No merits ruling was issued. The design patent USD1034007S remains valid and enforceable against other parties.
Yes. The case’s dismissal with prejudice affects only the named defendants (MOGONICE-US DIRECT). It does not adjudicate the patent’s validity or limit enforcement against other parties. USD1034007S — covering the ornamental design of a shelf — remains a live U.S. design patent with no recorded IPR or invalidity proceedings as of this case’s closure.
The action was filed against ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule A’ — a standard anonymous placeholder used in e-commerce Schedule A litigation. The only specifically identified defendants in the dismissal motion are MOGONICE-US DIRECT, appearing as entries 7 and 8 on Schedule A. No other defendants are named in the available public record.
Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may dismiss without a court order when defendants have not yet answered. The cost-neutral order — each party bears its own fees — is standard in this procedural posture. It forecloses a fee award to defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and suggests either a private resolution or a straightforward abandonment of enforcement against these specific sellers.
Schedule A litigation is an enforcement strategy where a plaintiff names dozens of anonymous online marketplace sellers as defendants in a single complaint. The Northern District of Illinois is a preferred venue because of its willingness to grant ex parte TROs and asset freezes against anonymous defendants early in proceedings. Cases often resolve within months — through settlement, licensing, or voluntary dismissal — without reaching merits adjudication.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.