Shenzhen Zilin Tech v. Schedule A Defendants: Bathtub Toy Design Patent Dispute
Shenzhen Zilin Tech Co. Ltd brought a design patent infringement action in the Southern District of Florida asserting four USD design patents covering bathtub toys against a slate of anonymous online sellers. The case closed after 158 days with a voluntary dismissal with prejudice as to at least Defendant No. 26 — a resolution pattern consistent with targeted enforcement settlements in Schedule A litigation.
Design patent blitz: Zilin Tech targets anonymous bathtub toy sellers
On 30 March 2025, Shenzhen Zilin Tech Co. Ltd filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, asserting infringement of four ornamental design patents — USD0987737S, USD0987736S, USD0987738S, and USD1009183S — each directed to the appearance of bathtub toys. The defendants were identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,’ a common pleading device used to capture large numbers of anonymous e-commerce sellers in a single filing.
The case closed on 4 September 2025, 158 days after filing. The termination was a voluntary dismissal with prejudice specifically as to Defendant No. 26 on Schedule A, filed by plaintiff’s counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). A dismissal with prejudice bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against that specific defendant, suggesting the parties reached some form of resolution — potentially a settlement, a takedown agreement, or a finding that the defendant posed no ongoing risk.
The 158-day duration is consistent with the pace of Schedule A enforcement actions in S.D. Florida, where judges routinely grant early temporary restraining orders and asset freezes that create strong settlement pressure. The public record does not disclose the terms of any agreement with Defendant No. 26, nor the status of the remaining Schedule A defendants, leaving the broader enforcement outcome largely opaque from available filings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 158 days
158-day case duration — relatively swift for a multi-defendant Schedule A infringement action in S.D. Fla.
Dismissed with prejudice: what this means for Zilin Tech and Defendant No. 26
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice explained
A plaintiff may dismiss an action without court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. When that dismissal is ‘with prejudice,’ it operates as a final adjudication on the merits — the plaintiff permanently relinquishes its right to sue the same defendant on the same claims. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, there is no second bite at the apple against Defendant No. 26.
Permanent bar on re-filingZilin Tech closes out one defendant — enforcement continues elsewhere
By filing with prejudice, Zilin Tech signals that its dispute with Defendant No. 26 is fully resolved — consistent with a private settlement, a licensing agreement, or a confirmed takedown. The plaintiff retains all rights against the remaining Schedule A defendants, so enforcement of the four design patents is not concluded overall. The with-prejudice designation also protects the defendant from future harassment on these specific patents.
Partial enforcement resolvedDefendant No. 26 secures permanent release from these design patent claims
The dismissal with prejudice gives Defendant No. 26 a complete and permanent shield against further suit by Zilin Tech on these four bathtub toy design patents in this action. Whatever the underlying terms — settlement payment, product removal, or a finding of non-infringement — the public record is silent. Other Schedule A defendants named in the original complaint do not benefit from this dismissal and may still face active enforcement.
Permanent release securedFour active design patents remain enforceable against the market
USD0987737S, USD0987736S, USD0987738S, and USD1009183S remain live and asserted. Any seller of ornamentally similar bathtub toys on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, or Wish should treat this case as an active signal: Zilin Tech is willing to litigate in S.D. Florida and use the Schedule A mechanism to pursue multiple defendants simultaneously. Design patent infringement is assessed by the ‘ordinary observer’ test — even minor ornamental similarity can be sufficient to sustain a claim.
Ongoing multi-defendant riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Zilin Tech Co. | Company | Shenzhen-based consumer goods IP holder — asserting USD0987737S and three related design patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers identified only by Schedule A listing — typical of online marketplace enforcement actionsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ni Xue | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Zilin Tech Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Valerie L. Raphael | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Zilin Tech Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Roy K. Altman | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice is narrow and deliberate: Zilin Tech explicitly limited its Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice to Defendant No. 26, leaving the balance of Schedule A defendants unaffected. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is significant — it forecloses any future re-filing of these design patent claims against that specific defendant, suggesting the parties reached a final resolution. No court approval was required under Rule 41 at this pre-answer stage, meaning the dismissal took effect upon filing.
USD0987737S and three related design patents — ornamental bathtub toy designs
The four asserted patents — USD0987737S (App. No. US29/815034), USD0987736S (App. No. US29/815027), USD0987738S (App. No. US29/815035), and USD1009183S (App. No. US29/815024) — are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of bathtub toys. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the non-functional, aesthetic aspects of a product. The overlapping application numbers suggest these were filed as a coordinated family, likely protecting slightly different ornamental variants of a related toy design to maximise enforcement coverage.
For consumer goods manufacturers and importers, a cluster of four related design patents covering a single product category represents meaningful IP risk. The ‘ordinary observer’ test — under which infringement is found if an ordinary consumer would purchase the accused product mistaking it for the patented design — can sweep in products with only moderate visual similarity. Competitors sourcing or selling bathtub toys in the U.S. market should treat this patent family as an active enforcement risk, given Zilin Tech’s demonstrated willingness to litigate in federal court.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD0987737S and the Zilin Tech design patent family?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling bathtub toys or visually similar bath products for the U.S. market should consider a freedom-to-operate review against this four-patent family. Schedule A plaintiffs frequently file successive actions against new defendants — a company that has not assessed its exposure may face a TRO and asset freeze before it has an opportunity to respond. Product design teams should compare their toy ornamental designs against each of the four registered designs.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental claim scope of USD0987737S, USD0987736S, USD0987738S, and USD1009183S against your product portfolio, surface prior art that may support an invalidity argument, and identify related design patent families filed by Shenzhen Zilin Tech. For sourcing teams and e-commerce sellers, Eureka’s litigation monitoring tools can flag new Schedule A complaints before a TRO motion is served.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0987737S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A enforcement cases in S.D. Florida
Cases involving multi-defendant design patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers in the Southern District of Florida, covering consumer goods and toy product categories.
What this case signals for the consumer goods design patent IP landscape
Schedule A design patent enforcement in S.D. Florida is a well-worn playbook — this case confirms it remains active for toy and consumer goods IP.
S.D. Florida remains a preferred venue for Schedule A design patent sweeps
The Southern District of Florida, and particularly judges in the Miami division, have developed extensive familiarity with Schedule A multi-defendant cases. Early TROs, asset freezes via PayPal and Alibaba, and fast dockets create strong incentives for defendants to settle quickly. Sellers on major e-commerce platforms should assume this venue is in scope for any enforcement action by a Chinese IP holder.
Four registered design patents signal a layered IP protection strategy
Zilin Tech’s decision to assert four distinct USD design patents over what appear to be related bathtub toy designs suggests a deliberate portfolio approach — minor ornamental variants each registered separately to maximise claim coverage. Competitors and sellers should not assume that designing around one patent avoids all infringement risk when multiple related design registrations are in play.
Shenzhen v Partnerships — key questions answered
Zilin Tech asserted four U.S. design patents: USD0987737S, USD0987736S, USD0987738S, and USD1009183S, all directed to ornamental designs for bathtub toys. The patents were filed as application numbers US29/815034, US29/815027, US29/815035, and US29/815024 respectively.
The plaintiff, Shenzhen Zilin Tech, elected to file a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal with prejudice as to Defendant No. 26. A with-prejudice designation permanently bars re-filing the same claims against that defendant, and typically follows a settlement or agreed resolution. The public record does not disclose the terms of any underlying agreement.
Schedule A defendants are anonymous sellers — typically e-commerce marketplace accounts — whose identities are initially unknown to the plaintiff. They are identified by pseudonymous store names or account numbers on a sealed schedule. This filing mechanism allows a single plaintiff to target dozens or hundreds of online sellers simultaneously in one complaint, which is common in design patent enforcement in S.D. Florida.
No. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the notice of dismissal filed by Zilin Tech was expressly limited to Defendant No. 26. All other defendants identified on Schedule A remain subject to the original complaint and any associated court orders, including any TRO or asset freeze that may have been granted earlier in the proceeding.
Under Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa (Fed. Cir. 2008), design patent infringement is assessed by asking whether an ordinary observer, giving as much attention as a purchaser ordinarily would, would mistake the accused product for the patented design. For bathtub toys, this means that overall shape, proportions, and decorative features are compared — minor functional differences are irrelevant. Sellers of visually similar toys face real infringement risk even if the products are not identical.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.