Shenzhen Yibaifen v. Schedule A Defendants: Cushion Design Patent Dismissed
Shenzhen Yibaifen E-commerce Co., Ltd. filed a design patent infringement suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting USD1041204S — a design patent covering a cushion — against a group of unnamed Schedule A defendants. The case closed just 9 days after filing via voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
A rapid Schedule A design patent action ends before defendants appeared
On November 13, 2024, Shenzhen Yibaifen E-commerce Co., Ltd. filed a design patent infringement complaint in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Joan B. Gottschall. The single patent asserted — USD1041204S (application number US29/936600) — covers the ornamental design of a cushion. The defendants were not named individually but were identified as partnerships and unincorporated associations listed on a Schedule A attachment, a common enforcement structure in e-commerce IP cases targeting multiple online sellers simultaneously.
The case closed on November 22, 2024 — just nine days after filing — when the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Shenzhen Yibaifen retains the right to refile claims against these or other defendants in the future. Crucially, no defendant had appeared, filed an answer, or filed a motion for summary judgment, which is precisely what makes Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal available as of right. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
A nine-day lifespan is extremely short even by the standards of Schedule A litigation, where cases frequently close before defendants mount formal defenses. The public record does not disclose whether settlements were reached privately, whether the plaintiff identified the wrong defendants, or whether strategic considerations prompted the early exit. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal leaves the legal landscape open, and the underlying design patent USD1041204S remains enforceable.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 9 days
9 days — well below the district median for IP cases
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41(a)(1) exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal: available as of right before any response
Under FRCP 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order if the defendant has not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, no Schedule A defendant appeared or responded, making this dismissal procedurally straightforward. It requires no judicial approval and takes effect immediately upon filing of the notice.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice — but the public record does not confirm this universally
The verdict text explicitly states dismissal is ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Shenzhen Yibaifen may refile against these defendants. A dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar refiling. The basis of termination in the public record is logged simply as ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without further qualification — practitioners should consult the docket text directly to confirm the precise terms applicable to each defendant.
Refiling remains possibleDefendants exit without adjudication — but exposure persists
Because no defendant appeared, no judgment was entered against any party. However, the without-prejudice dismissal means defendants are not protected from future suit on the same design patent. Schedule A defendants in e-commerce enforcement actions should treat a voluntary dismissal as a pause, not a resolution — particularly where the underlying patent remains in force.
No merits ruling enteredUSD1041204S remains live — enforcement risk continues for cushion sellers
The dismissal has no effect on the validity or enforceability of USD1041204S. Online sellers of cushion products — particularly those operating across marketplace platforms such as Amazon, eBay, or Walmart Marketplace — should assess whether their product designs fall within the ornamental scope of this patent. Schedule A litigation is frequently refiled with amended defendant lists after intelligence-gathering.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Yibaifen E-commerce Co., Ltd. | Company | E-commerce company — holder of cushion design patent USD1041204SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Unnamed online seller partnerships and unincorporated associations (Schedule A)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Depeng Bi | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Yibaifen E-commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Konrad Val Sherinian | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Yibaifen E-commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Yibaifen E-commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Joan B. Gottschall | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1) notice confirms that no defendant filed an answer or dispositive motion, making the dismissal a unilateral procedural right rather than a negotiated outcome. The ‘without prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it resets the clock without triggering claim preclusion. The fee-bearing provision — each party bears its own costs — is standard in Rule 41(a)(1) notices and does not reflect any merits assessment by the court. No judicial ruling on the validity or infringement of USD1041204S was made.
USD1041204S — Ornamental design for a cushion
USD1041204S is a U.S. design patent — filed under application number US29/936600 — protecting the ornamental appearance of a cushion. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of a manufactured article as depicted in the patent’s drawings. Unlike utility patents, design patents have a single claim: ‘the ornamental design for [article], as shown and described.’ The protection scope is therefore defined entirely by the figures, and infringement is assessed using the ‘ordinary observer’ test established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa.
Design patents for consumer soft-goods such as cushions are frequently asserted in e-commerce enforcement campaigns because the ornamental designs of competing online sellers are visually comparable and product images are publicly indexed on marketplace platforms. A design patent holder can leverage TRO procedures to freeze seller accounts rapidly. USD1041204S held by a Shenzhen-based e-commerce company suggests a Chinese seller enforcing design rights against other marketplace competitors — a growing enforcement pattern in the home goods sector.
Should your cushion product line be assessed against USD1041204S?
Any company — particularly marketplace-based sellers of cushions, throw pillows, or similar soft furnishings — should consider whether their product designs could be found substantially similar to USD1041204S under the ordinary observer standard. The risk is heightened for sellers on Amazon, eBay, Temu, or Walmart Marketplace, where product imagery is directly comparable and Schedule A plaintiffs routinely use image-matching to identify targets. Even sellers whose products differ in material or function may face exposure if the silhouette and surface ornamentation are visually similar.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim drawings of USD1041204S against your product design portfolio and flag visual similarity risks before enforcement activity begins. Eureka’s design patent landscape tools surface related design applications from the same applicant, helping R&D and product teams identify whether additional related design patents from Shenzhen Yibaifen or affiliated entities are in prosecution — enabling proactive design-around strategies before new complaints are filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1041204S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cushion and home goods design patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Browse related Schedule A design patent infringement actions involving home goods and soft furnishings filed in the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent enforcement landscape
Short-lived Schedule A actions often reflect strategic intelligence-gathering or pre-settlement activity, not simple abandonment.
Nine-day dismissals in Schedule A cases often precede refiling
When a Schedule A plaintiff voluntarily dismisses within days of filing — before any defendant has appeared — it typically signals one of three things: private resolution with certain defendants, identification errors in the Schedule A list, or a strategic pivot to a revised complaint. The without-prejudice status here preserves all of these options for Shenzhen Yibaifen.
Design patent enforcement in e-commerce is procedurally distinct
Schedule A litigation allows plaintiffs to file against dozens of anonymous online sellers simultaneously and obtain TROs freezing marketplace accounts early. The speed of this dismissal — before any TRO hearing is evident in the record — suggests the case may not have reached that stage, or that account actions were resolved outside the court process.
Shenzhen v Partnerships — key questions answered
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) means the plaintiff ended the case without a court ruling on the merits, and retains the right to refile the same claims in the future. In this case, Shenzhen Yibaifen dismissed all claims against the Schedule A defendants, but the action is not permanently barred — the company could bring a new complaint asserting USD1041204S against the same or different defendants.
The patent asserted was USD1041204S (application number US29/936600), a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design of a cushion. Design patents protect the visual appearance of an article rather than its function, and infringement is assessed by whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design as shown in the patent’s drawings.
The public record does not disclose the precise reason for the rapid dismissal. The plaintiff’s notice states that no defendant had appeared or filed an answer, making Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal procedurally available. Possible explanations include private settlements with certain defendants, identification errors in the Schedule A list, or a strategic decision to refile with a revised complaint. The with-prejudice status suggests the plaintiff has not permanently abandoned its enforcement position.
Schedule A litigation is a form of multi-defendant enforcement where a plaintiff files a single complaint against a group of unnamed defendants — typically e-commerce marketplace sellers — identified only in an attached schedule. It is commonly used in design patent and trademark cases targeting online sellers because it allows plaintiffs to obtain temporary restraining orders freezing multiple seller accounts simultaneously while minimising per-defendant filing costs.
No. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice has no effect on the validity or enforceability of the underlying patent. USD1041204S remains in force and Shenzhen Yibaifen retains all rights to assert it in future proceedings. No court ruled on the validity, scope, or infringement of the patent in this case, meaning the patent’s legal status is unchanged by the dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.