USB-C Magnetic Connector Patent Case: Shenzhen Ke Xiu v. BSCStore & ZMSolution Dismissed With Prejudice

📄 View Full Report 📥 Export PDF 🔗 Share ⭐ Save

📋 Case Summary

Case Name Shenzhen Ke Xiu Technology Co., Ltd. v. BSCStore & ZMSolution
Case Number 1:24-cv-01465 (E.D. Va.)
Court Eastern District of Virginia
Duration Aug 2024 – Apr 2025 233 days
Outcome Defendant Win – Dismissed with Prejudice
Patents at Issue
Accused Products USB-C magnetic connectors and electronic connectors featuring dual terminal head configurations

Case Overview

The Parties

⚖️ Plaintiff

A Shenzhen-based electronics manufacturer holding U.S. patent rights in electronic connector technology, actively pursuing enforcement in U.S. federal courts.

🛡️ Defendants

E-commerce sellers identified from a larger group of “Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A,” involved in the sale of electronic connector accessories.

The Patent at Issue

This case involved U.S. Patent No. US11728602B2, covering electronic connectors with a first and second terminal head configuration, consistent with USB-C magnetic connector configurations:

  • US11728602B2 — Electronic connectors with dual terminal head configurations for magnetic connection.
🔍

Designing a similar USB-C product?

Check if your USB-C magnetic connector design might infringe this or related patents.

Run FTO Check →

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case terminated via a Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), covering defendants BSCStore and ZMSolution. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was formally entered. Each party bore its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

Key Legal Issues

Because the matter resolved before any substantive ruling, there was no judicial finding on patent validity, infringement, or damages. This outcome is characteristic of Schedule A enforcement litigation, where the objective is often rapid resolution through licensing agreements or cessation of infringing sales, rather than a full merits adjudication.

✍️

Filing a USB-C connector patent?

Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand litigation.

Try Patent Drafting →

Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP

From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.

⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis for USB-C Connectors

This case highlights critical IP risks in the USB-C magnetic connector space. Choose your next step:

📋 Understand This Case’s Impact

Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.

  • View the enforcement strategy for US11728602B2
  • See how Schedule A litigation unfolds for e-commerce sellers
  • Understand early settlement dynamics and outcomes
📊 View Patent Landscape
⚠️
High Risk Area

USB-C magnetic connectors with dual terminal heads

📋
1 Patent at Issue

US11728602B2 for electronic connectors

Early Dismissal

Highlights effectiveness of defense strategy

✅ Key Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys & Litigators

Schedule A multi-defendant litigation remains a tactically viable enforcement vehicle for consumer electronics patent holders.

Search Schedule A trends →

Early resolution with named defendants preserves patent validity and enables continued enforcement against other marketplace sellers.

Explore settlement strategies →

The Eastern District of Virginia’s efficient docket management makes it a favorable venue for enforcement-oriented patent plaintiffs.

Analyze venue trends →

For R&D & Product Teams

Conduct FTO analysis against US11728602B2 before launching USB-C magnetic connector products in U.S. markets.

Start FTO analysis for my product →

The active enforcement posture of Shenzhen Ke Xiu signals ongoing IP risk in the magnetic connector accessory segment.

Monitor IP risk in connectors →

Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?

Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.

⚖️ Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis presented reflects publicly available case information and general legal principles. For specific advice regarding patent litigation, FTO analysis, or IP strategy, please consult a qualified patent attorney.