Stojo Products vs. Schedule A Defendants: Voluntary Dismissal in Collapsible Tumbler Design Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Stojo Products, Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on the Attached Schedule A |
| Case Number | 1:23-cv-06644 (N.D. Ill.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Duration | Aug 2023 – Apr 2024 7 months 26 days |
| Outcome | Case Closed – Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Collapsible travel tumbler (Shein seller “Intelligent Deals”) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Consumer lifestyle brand recognized for its innovative collapsible, reusable drinkware products, including its flagship collapsible cup and tumbler lines.
🛡️ Defendant
Identified collectively under the “Schedule A” complaint structure. The operative defendant at dismissal was Shein seller “Intelligent Deals” (Platform Seller ID: 9753835049).
The Patent at Issue
This case involved a design patent covering the ornamental design of a collapsible travel tumbler. Design patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and protect ornamental appearance rather than functional technology. Under 35 U.S.C. § 171, a design patent covers what a product *looks like*, assessed under the “ordinary observer” test established in *Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.*, 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
- • US D756,705S — Ornamental design of a collapsible travel tumbler
Designing a similar product?
Check if your collapsible tumbler design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case was terminated by **voluntary dismissal with prejudice** pursuant to **Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i)**, filed by plaintiff Stojo Products on April 26, 2024. The dismissal applied specifically to defendant “Intelligent Deals” operating on the Shein platform (Seller ID: 9753835049).
A dismissal *with prejudice* is legally significant: it constitutes an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41, permanently barring Stojo from refiling the same claims against this defendant. No damages amount was disclosed in the public record.
Key Legal Issues
Because the case resolved by voluntary dismissal rather than judicial ruling, there is no published legal analysis of infringement or validity from the court. This is common in Schedule A litigation, where defendants settle quietly or plaintiffs dismiss after extracting settlement terms. The “with prejudice” designation suggests either a settlement agreement with a covenant not to sue, or a deliberate strategic decision by Stojo to close out this particular defendant finally.
While this case produces no binding precedent, it reflects an important pattern in design patent enforcement: **the Northern District of Illinois Schedule A framework functions as a pressure mechanism**, not necessarily a path to trial. The filing itself—combined with potential TRO-driven platform enforcement—often achieves the plaintiff’s enforcement goals before any court ruling on the merits.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in **collapsible tumbler designs**. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View the 1 related patent in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in design patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for collapsible drinkware
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Collapsible tumbler designs
1 Patent at Issue
In collapsible drinkware design space
Design-Around Options
Available for most claims
✅ Key Takeaways
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) terminates claims permanently—confirm settlement terms are secured before filing.
Search related case law →Schedule A complaints remain a high-utility enforcement vehicle in the Northern District of Illinois for design patent holders against e-commerce sellers.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Design Patent No. USD756705S (Application No. US29/525399), protecting the ornamental design of a collapsible travel tumbler.
Plaintiff Stojo Products filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) against Shein seller “Intelligent Deals,” likely reflecting a negotiated resolution or strategic enforcement decision. No court ruling on the merits was issued.
It reinforces that U.S. design patent holders actively enforce rights against e-commerce marketplace sellers, and that the Northern District of Illinois remains a preferred venue for such actions.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — Case 1:23-cv-06644 via PACER
- Google Patents — US Design Patent No. D756,705
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Design Patent Resources (USPTO)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 & 35 U.S.C. § 171
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records, including PACER and Google Patents. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.