Shenzhen Zhierle v. Yingxiang Fu: Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Shenzhen Zhierle Technology Co., Ltd. brought a design patent infringement action against individual defendant Yingxiang Fu in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting design patent USD962740S over product ASIN B07XVGXDM2. The case was dismissed without prejudice after 229 days — the court finding it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Design Patent Claim Ends Before Merits: Jurisdiction Defeats Filing
On October 22, 2023, Shenzhen Zhierle Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese consumer product company, filed a design patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Yingxiang Fu, an individual defendant. The asserted patent is USD962740S (application no. 29/741432), a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a consumer product sold under ASIN B07XVGXDM2 on what is likely an e-commerce platform such as Amazon.
On June 7, 2024 — 229 days after filing — Judge Manish S. Shah dismissed the case without prejudice on the basis that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant Yingxiang Fu. A dismissal without prejudice on jurisdictional grounds means the merits of the infringement claim were never adjudicated; the plaintiff retains the legal right to refile the action in a forum where jurisdiction can be properly established.
The relatively short duration is consistent with a case resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage, before any substantive patent analysis. The outcome suggests the defendant successfully challenged Illinois as the appropriate forum — a common dynamic in cases involving individual or overseas defendants selling through online marketplaces. The public record does not disclose whether Zhierle intends to refile in an alternative jurisdiction, nor the defendant’s precise geographic connection to Illinois.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 229 days
229 days — resolved before trial, consistent with early jurisdictional dismissals
Dismissed without prejudice: what the jurisdictional ruling means for both parties
Personal jurisdiction dismissal — no merits ruling on infringement
A dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction means the court determined it had no authority to hear claims against this particular defendant — not that the patent is invalid or non-infringed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a defendant may challenge whether the forum state has sufficient contacts with them. Here, the Northern District of Illinois found those contacts insufficient, ending the case without reaching the substance of the design patent claim.
Procedural — no infringement findingWithout prejudice: plaintiff retains full right to refile
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying cause of action. Shenzhen Zhierle may refile the same infringement claim in a court that can establish personal jurisdiction over Yingxiang Fu — whether a different U.S. district, or potentially in the defendant’s home jurisdiction. No estoppel or res judicata bars apply to the patent merits. The clock on any applicable statute of limitations continues to run, however, making refiling strategy time-sensitive.
Plaintiff may refile in proper forumDefendant avoids merits adjudication — for now
Yingxiang Fu successfully defeated this action on jurisdictional grounds, meaning no infringement liability has been established. However, the dismissal without prejudice provides no permanent protection: if the plaintiff identifies a court with proper jurisdiction, the defendant will face the same design patent claims again. The defendant’s ongoing sale of the accused product (ASIN B07XVGXDM2) may continue to expose them to re-filed litigation.
No merits protection grantedE-commerce design patent enforcement: jurisdiction as a strategic variable
This outcome is consistent with a broader pattern in which Chinese IP holders pursuing individual sellers on U.S. online marketplaces encounter personal jurisdiction obstacles in chosen forums. The result does not weaken USD962740S — the patent remains in force and enforceable. For marketplace sellers, this case signals that jurisdictional challenges can be an effective early defence, but do not resolve the underlying IP exposure if the patent holder elects to refile.
Patent remains valid and enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Zhierle Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer product manufacturer — holder of design patent USD962740SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Yingxiang Fu | Individual | Individual defendant Yingxiang Fu, alleged infringer of design patent USD962740SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ge Lei | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Zhierle Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Getech Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Zhierle Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance Y. Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Yingxiang FuSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lance Liu | Law Firm | Representing Yingxiang FuSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Manish S. Shah | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s dismissal ‘without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction’ is a purely procedural disposition — it reflects no view on whether USD962740S is valid, infringed, or enforceable. The phrase ‘without prejudice’ is legally significant: it preserves the plaintiff’s right to bring identical claims in a competent forum. The ruling suggests the defendant successfully argued insufficient minimum contacts with Illinois, a threshold requirement under International Shoe and its progeny. No damages, injunctions, or fee awards were made.
USD962740S — Consumer Product Ornamental Design Patent
USD962740S is a U.S. design patent filed under application number 29/741432, covering the ornamental appearance of a consumer product identified in this litigation by its Amazon ASIN B07XVGXDM2. U.S. design patents protect only the non-functional, visual characteristics of an article of manufacture. The ‘D’ prefix designation confirms this is a design — not utility — patent, with a standard term of 15 years from grant under post-AIA rules. The product category is not disclosed in the public case record beyond the ASIN reference.
For Shenzhen Zhierle, USD962740S represents a registered IP right capable of supporting marketplace enforcement actions — including Amazon’s IP complaint mechanisms — as well as federal litigation. The fact that this action was filed in a major U.S. district court signals an active enforcement posture. Competitors and marketplace sellers offering visually similar products in the same category should treat this patent as an active litigation asset, particularly given the plaintiff’s demonstrated willingness to file suit and the dismissal’s lack of any merits-limiting effect.
Should you run an FTO against USD962740S?
Any brand, manufacturer, or marketplace seller offering a consumer product visually similar to ASIN B07XVGXDM2 should consider a freedom-to-operate review against USD962740S. Design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — meaning even functional differences may not protect a product if the overall ornamental impression is substantially similar to the claimed design. The risk is heightened for sellers on Amazon and similar platforms, where IP complaints can result in listing removal independent of litigation outcomes.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and product teams to run structured design patent clearance searches against USD962740S, compare visual claim scope across related design patent families, and identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments. Given that this case was dismissed on jurisdiction rather than merits, the patent’s enforceability is unimpaired — making proactive FTO analysis the most commercially prudent step for any company in this product space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0962740S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Infringement Cases in U.S. E-Commerce Enforcement
Explore related design patent infringement actions filed in U.S. district courts against individual marketplace sellers, with a focus on personal jurisdiction outcomes and ASIN-based enforcement strategies.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent IP landscape
A jurisdictional dismissal without prejudice rarely ends the story — it resets the venue question while leaving the patent fully intact.
Personal jurisdiction is an underused early defence for marketplace defendants
Individual and small-business defendants selling through platforms like Amazon are frequently sued in forums with tenuous connections to their activities. This case illustrates that a timely 12(b)(2) motion can terminate proceedings before costly patent discovery begins. Defendants in similar positions should assess their geographic nexus to the plaintiff’s chosen forum as a first line of defence.
USD962740S remains live — refile risk persists for the accused product
The dismissal does not invalidate or narrow Shenzhen Zhierle’s design patent. Any seller currently listing ASIN B07XVGXDM2 or a visually similar product should treat this case as a warning rather than a clearance. The plaintiff retains full enforcement rights and may select a more favourable jurisdiction on re-filing.
Shenzhen v Yingxiang — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case without prejudice on June 7, 2024, after finding it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant Yingxiang Fu. Shenzhen Zhierle had asserted design patent USD962740S against product ASIN B07XVGXDM2. No merits ruling on infringement was made. The plaintiff retains the right to refile in a proper forum.
It means the court declined to hear the case due to insufficient legal authority over the defendant — not because the patent is invalid or uninfringed. The patent remains in force and enforceable. The plaintiff may refile the same claims in a court that can establish proper jurisdiction over Yingxiang Fu, such as the defendant’s home district.
Yes. The dismissal was purely procedural — based on personal jurisdiction, not patent validity or infringement. USD962740S was not challenged on its merits in this action. The patent continues to carry full legal effect and can be asserted in subsequent litigation or used to support marketplace IP complaints.
Federal courts apply the forum state’s long-arm statute and the constitutional ‘minimum contacts’ standard from International Shoe Co. v. Washington. A defendant must have purposefully availed themselves of the forum state such that being haled into court there is foreseeable. For individual online sellers, courts examine whether the defendant directed sales, advertising, or other conduct specifically at Illinois consumers.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling. Shenzhen Zhierle could bring the same design patent infringement claim in a district where personal jurisdiction over Fu is properly established — likely the defendant’s state of residence or primary business activity. The underlying merits of the USD962740S infringement claim remain entirely open.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.