Tang v. Chongqing Qinglu Network Technology: Towing Device Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Aiming Tang filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting US11446973B1 — a patent covering towing device products — against Chongqing Qinglu Network Technology Co., Ltd. The case closed with a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) just 43 days after filing, before any substantive merits ruling.
A 43-day towing device patent suit ends before any defence was filed
On 26 June 2025, Aiming Tang — represented by Glacier Law LLP — filed a patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:25-cv-07190) against Chongqing Qinglu Network Technology Co., Ltd, a Chinese technology company. The single patent in suit, US11446973B1 (application no. US17/751683), covers towing device products. The case was assigned to Judge Robert W. Gettleman.
On 8 August 2025 — just 43 days after filing — plaintiff Aiming Tang voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Dismissal with prejudice is a permanent termination: Tang is barred from re-asserting the same claims against Chongqing Qinglu based on this patent. No defendant counsel of record appears in the public docket, suggesting the dismissal was filed before any responsive pleading or motion for summary judgment had been served.
The 43-day lifespan and absence of any defendant filing are consistent with a pre-answer resolution — likely a private settlement, licensing agreement, or commercial understanding reached outside court. The public record is silent on the financial terms or any licence grant. What is clear is that Tang’s team chose the most decisive available exit: a with-prejudice dismissal forecloses future litigation on these specific claims against this defendant, making any underlying deal unusually final.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 43 days
43 days from filing to closure — well below the median district court patent case lifespan of 2–3 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice — a permanent close
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant has served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here, Tang elected to dismiss with prejudice — a choice not required by the rule, but one that permanently extinguishes the claims. No court order, merits finding, or ruling on patent validity was issued.
Plaintiff-initiated terminationTang permanently relinquishes infringement claims against this defendant
By dismissing with prejudice, Aiming Tang surrenders the right to re-sue Chongqing Qinglu on the same claims under US11446973B1. This is an unusually strong concession for a voluntary exit and typically signals a negotiated resolution — whether a licence, payment, or product change — that made further litigation unnecessary. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties.
Claims extinguished vs. this defendantChongqing Qinglu gains permanent protection from these specific claims
The with-prejudice dismissal gives Chongqing Qinglu a complete bar against future suit by Tang on the same patent claims for the same accused products. The defendant filed no responsive pleading and incurred no recorded adverse finding. If a settlement drove the outcome, the defendant likely secured certainty — whether through a licence or a design-around — without judicial merits determination.
Permanent bar on re-filingUS11446973B1 remains active — risk for other towing device sellers
The dismissal resolves the dispute only between these two parties. US11446973B1 is not invalidated, cancelled, or limited in scope. Other companies selling towing device products in the US market — including e-commerce sellers sourcing from China — remain exposed to assertion by Tang. The fast resolution may reflect Tang’s broader enforcement strategy: file, negotiate, and settle before costly litigation escalates.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Aiming Tang | Individual | Individual patent holder — asserting US11446973B1 covering towing device productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Chongqing Qinglu Network Technology Co., Ltd | Company | Chongqing Qinglu Network Technology Co., Ltd — Chinese technology company, towing device productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tao Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Aiming TangSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wei Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Aiming TangSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Glacier Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Aiming TangSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert W. Gettleman | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal language — filed by plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly stated as ‘with prejudice’ — carries precise legal weight. Because no answer or motion for summary judgment had been served, the plaintiff held the unilateral right to dismiss. The election of with-prejudice status was voluntary and goes beyond what the rule required, permanently barring Tang from re-filing the same claims against this defendant. No court evaluation of patent validity, claim scope, or infringement was conducted.
US11446973B1 — Towing Device Products Patent
US11446973B1 (application no. US17/751683) is a granted US utility patent held by Aiming Tang covering towing device products. As a B1 grant, it issued without prior publication — indicating a relatively streamlined prosecution history. The patent covers mechanical or hardware innovations in the towing device space, a product category with significant e-commerce distribution and cross-border supply chain activity between China and the US market.
For companies in the towing, vehicle accessory, or outdoor equipment sectors, this patent represents active enforcement risk. The patent holder demonstrated willingness to file in a major federal district court and reach resolution rapidly — consistent with a monetisation or licensing strategy. With no IPR petition or invalidity challenge on record, the patent retains full presumption of validity, and its claim scope has not been tested or narrowed through litigation. Competitors and importers of similar products should treat it as a live threat.
Should your towing device products be cleared against US11446973B1?
Any company designing, importing, or selling towing device products in the United States — particularly those sourcing from China or selling through e-commerce platforms — should assess exposure to US11446973B1. This case confirms the patent is actively asserted, and the with-prejudice dismissal against one defendant does not extend protection to others. R&D and product teams introducing new towing accessories or hardware attachments to the US market should prioritise FTO clearance against this patent before launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11446973B1 against your product specifications, surface prior art that could support a validity challenge, and identify design-around options. Eureka also monitors the patent’s assignment and litigation history — so your team receives early warning if Tang files additional actions in the towing device space or related hardware categories.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11446973B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar towing device and hardware patent cases in US district courts
Cases involving towing device and mechanical hardware patents in the Northern District of Illinois and comparable US venues, including pre-answer voluntary dismissals.
What this case signals for the towing device and hardware IP landscape
A 43-day lifecycle and with-prejudice exit suggest a deliberate enforcement playbook targeting Chinese product sellers in US e-commerce channels.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice almost always signal private resolution
When a plaintiff files with prejudice before the defendant even appears, a background deal is the most likely explanation. For IP teams monitoring the towing device and hardware accessory space, this pattern — file, negotiate fast, resolve quietly — is a hallmark of patent assertion against e-commerce importers and should trigger FTO and monitoring reviews.
US11446973B1 is unimpaired and available for assertion against other defendants
No invalidity finding, IPR, or claim narrowing resulted from this case. The patent retains full presumption of validity. Companies selling competing towing device products in the Northern District of Illinois — a popular venue for IP enforcement — should treat this case as a signal of active assertion intent by the patent holder.
Tang v Chongqing — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice means Aiming Tang permanently relinquished the right to re-sue Chongqing Qinglu Network Technology on the same claims under US11446973B1. Filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before any defendant appearance, the court issued no merits ruling. The patent remains valid and enforceable against all other parties.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal with prejudice resolves claims only between Tang and Chongqing Qinglu. No invalidity finding, IPR, or claim scope limitation was issued. US11446973B1 retains its full presumption of validity and can be asserted against any other party making, using, or selling infringing towing device products in the United States.
A 43-day closure before any defendant filing is strongly consistent with a private resolution — most likely a licensing agreement, lump-sum settlement, or product modification commitment. The public record does not disclose financial terms. The election of with-prejudice dismissal, rather than without prejudice, suggests the parties reached a final agreement rather than merely pausing the dispute.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:25-cv-07190) and assigned to Judge Robert W. Gettleman. Plaintiff Aiming Tang was represented by Glacier Law LLP, with attorneys Tao Liu and Wei Wang listed as counsel. No defendant counsel appeared on the record.
Not by Aiming Tang for the same claims — the with-prejudice dismissal acts as a permanent bar under res judicata principles. However, if Tang assigns the patent to another party, that assignee would generally not be bound by Tang’s dismissal with prejudice. Additionally, if the accused products change materially, new claims might theoretically be advanced, though the legal bar is high.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.