Case Overview

A design patent infringement action filed in the Illinois Northern District Court concluded with a negotiated dismissal with prejudice, offering a textbook illustration of how Schedule A e-commerce enforcement campaigns frequently resolve outside formal adjudication. In Tang Zhaoshi v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Case No. 1:23-cv-04587), plaintiff Tang Zhaoshi pursued multiple online marketplace sellers — including defendants operating under names such as Cocoo, Docoo, Lzhevsk, Wings of Esa, Yummy Makeup, and Lvhevsk — for alleged infringement of design patent USD927221S, covering an iron frame product design.

The case closed on August 13, 2024, approximately 396 days after filing, with the matter between Tang Zhaoshi and defendant Lzhevsk dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with no award of attorney’s fees or costs to either side. For IP professionals, in-house counsel, and R&D teams operating in the consumer products and e-commerce space, this case reflects persistent strategic trends in design patent assertion against cross-border marketplace sellers.

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This case involved design patent USD927221S (Application No. US29/775514), protecting the ornamental appearance of an iron frame product rather than its functional attributes. Design patents, governed under 35 U.S.C. § 171, protect the unique visual characteristics of a manufactured article. Unlike utility patents, design patent infringement is evaluated under the ordinary observer test established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008), asking whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design.

• • US D927221S — Ornamental design for an iron frame

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case concluded via stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), specifically between plaintiff Tang Zhaoshi and defendant Lzhevsk. Key terms of the dismissal include:

• • Dismissed with prejudice (barring re-litigation of the same claims)
• • No attorney’s fees or costs awarded to either party
• • All costs described as having been paid prior to dismissal

The specific financial terms of any underlying settlement agreement were not publicly disclosed, which is standard practice in IP settlement resolutions.

Legal Significance

Several legally significant observations emerge:

• • Design Patent Scope in E-Commerce: This case reinforces the viability of design patents as enforcement tools against marketplace sellers, even in cases involving relatively straightforward consumer products like iron frames.
• • Schedule A Strategy Effectiveness: The consolidation of multiple defendants under the Schedule A framework enabled the plaintiff to pursue enforcement efficiently, with at least one defendant (Lzhevsk) settling rather than contesting the merits.
• • No Validity Challenge on Record: The public record does not reflect any inter partes review (IPR) petition or formal invalidity challenge filed against USD927221S, suggesting defendants opted for commercial resolution over patent challenge strategies.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Holders:

• • Design patents on consumer products, even common items, can support viable Schedule A enforcement campaigns in the Northern District of Illinois.
• • Filing applications under the USPTO design patent track provides relatively fast prosecution timelines and broad ornamental protection.

For Accused Infringers:

• • Early engagement with experienced cross-border IP counsel is critical. The speed of TRO proceedings in Schedule A cases can result in rapid asset freezes before defendants can mount a substantive defense.
• • Challenging design patent validity through IPR at the PTAB or asserting functionality defenses (arguing the design is dictated by function) remains an underutilized defense strategy in these cases.

For R&D Teams:

• • Conduct Freedom to Operate (FTO) analyses for product designs — not just utility features — before entering the U.S. market through online platforms.
• • Monitor design patent filings by competitors and IP assertion entities in your product category using USPTO Patent Full-Text Database (PatFT).