Shiwen Chen v. Schedule A Defendants: Design Patent Suit Dismissed in 32 Days
Shiwen Chen asserted design patent USD1067996S — covering a knitted toy — against unnamed Schedule A Defendants in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The case closed just 32 days after filing when Chen voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before any defendant served an answer.
Design Patent Infringement Action Over Knitted Toy Ends Before First Answer
On November 21, 2025, plaintiff Shiwen Chen, represented by Aptum Law attorney Zheng Liu, filed an infringement action in the Western District of Pennsylvania before Judge Marilyn J. Horan. The suit asserted design patent USD1067996S (application number US29/958554) against a class of unnamed online sellers collectively referred to as Schedule A Defendants — a common enforcement tactic targeting multiple e-commerce infringers in a single proceeding.
On December 23, 2025 — just 32 days after filing — Chen filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing the action without prejudice. The notice expressly stated that the Schedule A Defendants had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, satisfying the procedural prerequisite for a unilateral dismissal under Rule 41.
The speed of the dismissal — less than five weeks — is consistent with several possible outcomes common to Schedule A litigation: a private settlement, an inability to identify or serve defendants, or a tactical decision to refile. The public record is silent on the underlying reason. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Chen retains the right to reassert the same claims in a future action, subject to applicable limitations.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 32 days
32 days — well below the median lifespan for design patent infringement actions in U.S. district courts
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41 dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit
Under F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without court approval by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because no Schedule A Defendant had done either, Chen was entitled to exit the litigation unilaterally. This is a procedural right, not a merits decision — no judge ruled on the strength of the patent or the infringement allegations.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice — but the record is silent on why
The dismissal was expressly stated to be without prejudice, meaning Chen is not barred from refiling the same claims. However, Rule 41 dismissals can be with or without prejudice, and the public record here does not disclose the reason for the dismissal — whether settlement, inability to serve, or a tactical decision to refile in another forum. Users should not assume a resolution occurred simply because the case closed.
Refiling remains possibleDefendants face continued exposure on the same patent
Because the dismissal was without prejudice, any Schedule A Defendant who continues to sell the allegedly infringing knitted toy design may face a refiled action. No defendant obtained a ruling of non-infringement or invalidity. The absence of any appearance by defendants also means no fee-shifting or cost recovery was triggered in their favour under the prevailing-party standard.
No cleared path for defendantsSchedule A tactics signal broader enforcement intent
The use of a Schedule A complaint — bundling numerous unnamed online sellers — is a well-established strategy for design patent holders targeting e-commerce marketplaces. A voluntary dismissal at this early stage often precedes a settlement, a narrowed refile, or marketplace takedown demands. Sellers of knitted toy products in similar aesthetic categories should treat this action as an indicator of active design patent enforcement around USD1067996S.
Enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SHIWEN CHEN | Individual | Design patent holder asserting USD1067996S — a design patent for a knitted toySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | SCHEDULE A DEFENDANTS | Individual | Schedule A Defendants — unnamed individuals and entities alleged to sell infringing knitted toys onlineSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zheng Liu | Attorney | Counsel for SHIWEN CHENSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Aptum Law | Law Firm | Representing SHIWEN CHENSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Marilyn J. Horan | Judge | Pennsylvania Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly confirms no defendant had filed an answer or summary judgment motion, satisfying the procedural threshold for unilateral dismissal. The phrasing ‘without prejudice’ is legally significant: it preserves Chen’s right to reassert the same claims at a future date. No merits findings were made, no claim construction occurred, and no party obtained a judgment that could support a preclusion argument in subsequent proceedings.
USD1067996S — Ornamental Design for a Knitted Toy
USD1067996S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a knitted toy, filed under application number US29/958554. Design patents protect the non-functional, visual characteristics of a product — in this case, the specific aesthetic form of a knitted toy as depicted in the patent drawings. Unlike utility patents, design patents have a 15-year term from grant and do not require disclosure of functional innovations, making enforcement straightforward once a grant issues.
In the e-commerce era, design patents for consumer novelty and toy products have become important enforcement tools against overseas and marketplace sellers who replicate popular aesthetic formats. USD1067996S is positioned as an enforcement asset against sellers of visually similar knitted toy products. For competitors in the handcrafted or knitted plush toy category, understanding the specific ornamental elements covered by this patent — as depicted in its figures — is critical to assessing product design risk.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD1067996S?
Any company or individual seller offering knitted toy products — particularly through Amazon, Etsy, or other e-commerce platforms — should assess their exposure under USD1067996S. The Schedule A filing format signals that the patent holder is actively monitoring marketplace listings. Even minor ornamental similarities in product appearance could be sufficient to trigger a cease-and-desist or a refiled infringement action. FTO analysis is especially urgent for sellers who may have received prior takedown notices.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental scope of USD1067996S against your specific product design, surface prior art that could be used to challenge the patent’s validity, and identify related design patent families in the knitted or plush toy category. Running an FTO before launching or continuing to sell in this product category reduces the risk of being caught in a future Schedule A filing.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1067996S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Cases — Toy & Novelty Products
Design patent Schedule A actions in the W.D. Pennsylvania and related districts targeting e-commerce sellers of toy and novelty products.
What this case signals for the design patent enforcement landscape
Short-cycle Schedule A filings like this one are increasingly used as enforcement levers even when they close quickly — the IP implications outlast the docket.
Voluntary dismissal does not clear the patent — exposure persists
USD1067996S remains in force. No court has ruled on its validity or scope. E-commerce sellers offering knitted toy products with a similar ornamental design cannot rely on this dismissal as a safe harbour — the patent holder retains full rights to refile and enforce.
Schedule A filings move fast — so should your monitoring
This action went from filing to closure in 32 days. Companies selling in the toys and novelties space on e-commerce platforms should maintain active patent watch programmes covering design patents in adjacent product categories, particularly those asserted via Schedule A procedures.
CHEN v SCHEDULE — key questions answered
It means Shiwen Chen chose to end the case before any defendant responded, using Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal is without prejudice, so Chen retains the right to refile the same infringement claims based on USD1067996S against the same or different defendants in the future. No court ruled on the patent’s validity or whether infringement occurred.
No. The case closed on a voluntary dismissal before any substantive proceedings. No judge, jury, or inter partes review panel ruled on the validity of USD1067996S. The patent remains in force and fully enforceable as of the case closure date.
A Schedule A complaint is a litigation format in which a plaintiff sues a large number of unnamed defendants — identified only in a confidential schedule — in a single action. It is commonly used against e-commerce sellers on platforms like Amazon or Etsy. Courts have allowed this approach as an efficient mechanism for enforcing IP rights against multiple small infringers simultaneously.
Yes. Because the dismissal was explicitly stated to be without prejudice, Chen is not barred from refiling the same claims. Rule 41(a)(1)(B) provides that a second voluntary dismissal of the same claim by the same plaintiff would operate as a dismissal with prejudice, but no such bar applies after a single without-prejudice dismissal.
Shiwen Chen was represented by attorney Zheng Liu of Aptum Law. No defendant agents or law firms appeared in the case, consistent with the pre-answer dismissal — defendants were never formally served or did not file responses before the dismissal was filed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.