Wuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsi v. Schedule A Defendants: USD993734S Dismissed in 8 Days
A Chinese IP holder filed suit in the Illinois Southern District Court asserting design patent USD993734S covering an electric drill plate cutter against a broad Schedule A defendant list. The case was dismissed without prejudice just 8 days after filing — after the plaintiff failed to comply with a court procedural requirement and then sought a 30-day stay that was denied.
TRO denied, stay refused: a Schedule A action that collapsed in eight days
On January 18, 2024, Wuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsi — a Chinese technology company — filed an infringement action in the Illinois Southern District Court against a large, unnamed group of defendants identified only as ‘The Partnerships, Individuals and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ The asserted patent is USD993734S (application number US29/889387), a design patent covering an electric drill plate cutter. The action was assigned to Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins.
The case ended on January 26, 2024 — just eight days after filing — when Judge Jenkins dismissed it without prejudice. The court record indicates the plaintiff was warned that submission of a proposed order was required to proceed with a TRO. Rather than comply, the plaintiff filed a motion on January 25 seeking a 30-day stay to consider whether to pursue the TRO. That stay request was denied, and the case was immediately dismissed. A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff is not barred from refiling the same claims.
An eight-day lifespan is exceptionally brief even by the standards of high-volume Schedule A litigation, which frequently sees rapid TRO proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois. The swift collapse here suggests the plaintiff or its counsel was not prepared to satisfy the court’s procedural requirements on the TRO, and the decision to seek a stay rather than comply implies strategic uncertainty about the merits or the identified defendants. The public record does not disclose whether the plaintiff subsequently refiled or abandoned the enforcement effort.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 8 days
Resolved in 8 days — among the shortest Schedule A patent actions on record
Dismissed without prejudice: what the court’s ruling means for both sides
Court dismissed after plaintiff failed to meet TRO procedural requirements
Judge Jenkins dismissed the case without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to submit a required proposed order for TRO consideration and then sought a 30-day stay instead of complying. The denial of the stay — and immediate dismissal — signals the court’s unwillingness to hold a case open while a plaintiff decides whether it wants to proceed. This is a procedural, not merits, termination.
Procedural dismissalWithout prejudice: plaintiff can refile, but the clock restarted
A dismissal without prejudice does not adjudicate the underlying infringement claims and does not bar the plaintiff from bringing the same action again. However, refiling requires fresh procedural compliance and renewed TRO preparation. If infringing activity has continued, the plaintiff may face a stronger factual record — but must be ready to move quickly and correctly from the outset of any new filing.
Right to refile preservedSchedule A defendants escape without an injunction or merits ruling
Because the dismissal was without prejudice and on procedural grounds, the Schedule A defendants received no formal adjudication in their favour. No finding of non-infringement was made. Any asset freezes or TRO applications that may have been contemplated were never issued. Defendants remain exposed to a potential refiling if the plaintiff chooses to recommence the action with proper procedural preparation.
No injunction issuedA cautionary case for Schedule A plaintiffs on TRO procedural readiness
Schedule A litigation against e-commerce infringers typically depends on rapid TRO and asset freeze orders to be effective. This case illustrates that courts — including in the Illinois Southern District — will not hold proceedings open while plaintiffs reconsider their strategy. Practitioners filing design patent enforcement actions against marketplace sellers must have TRO submissions ready before, or immediately after, filing.
TRO readiness criticalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Wuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsi | Individual | Chinese technology IP holder — asserting design patent USD993734S over electric drill plate cutterSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships, Individuals and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Unnamed e-commerce sellers and individuals identified on Schedule A — typical of marketplace infringement actionsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lance Y. Liu | Attorney | Counsel for WuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lance Liu | Law Firm | Representing WuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins | Judge | Illinois Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s dismissal language is notable for its sequencing: the plaintiff was warned of a procedural requirement, failed to comply, and then sought delay rather than correction. Judge Jenkins’s denial of the stay request and immediate dismissal suggests a low tolerance for procedural drift in TRO proceedings. The without-prejudice designation preserves the plaintiff’s legal position on the merits but offers no practical relief against ongoing alleged infringement.
USD993734S — Electric Drill Plate Cutter Ornamental Design
USD993734S is a US design patent filed under application number US29/889387, covering the ornamental appearance of an electric drill plate cutter — a power tool accessory used for cutting sheet materials such as metal, plastic, and composite panels. Design patents protect the novel visual characteristics of a product, not its functional operation. The application designates a specific aesthetic form for this tool category, which has seen growing demand across construction, fabrication, and DIY markets.
From a competitive standpoint, design patents on tool accessories are increasingly used by Chinese manufacturers and IP holders to pursue infringement actions against e-commerce marketplace sellers. USD993734S sits in a crowded product space where multiple vendors sell visually similar drill plate cutters. The enforceability of the design claim depends heavily on the breadth of the ornamental scope relative to prior art. Competitors and platform sellers in this space should assess their product designs against the visual claim footprint of this patent.
Should your product team run an FTO check against USD993734S?
Any company designing, importing, or selling electric drill plate cutters or visually similar power tool cutting attachments on e-commerce platforms should treat USD993734S as an active risk — particularly given the without-prejudice dismissal, which leaves open the possibility of refiling. The design patent’s ornamental claim covers a specific aesthetic expression; products that share similar visual elements could attract future enforcement even if they differ functionally.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD993734S against your product designs, identify prior art that could narrow or challenge the patent’s enforceability, and flag related design patents in the electric drill accessory space. For marketplace sellers and tool manufacturers, a targeted FTO review now is substantially less costly than responding to a TRO application later.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0993734S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in Illinois federal courts
Explore related Schedule A infringement actions asserting design patents over power tool accessories filed in Illinois District Courts.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers
This eight-day dismissal exposes a recurring risk in Schedule A enforcement: procedural unreadiness at the TRO stage can nullify a filing entirely.
Schedule A actions live or die at the TRO stage — prepare before filing
This case confirms that courts will not grant holding periods while plaintiffs decide whether to pursue temporary restraining orders. The enforcement playbook for marketplace IP actions requires TRO materials — including proposed orders — to be finalised before the complaint is filed. A stay request in lieu of compliance will not succeed.
Dismissal without prejudice does not neutralise the commercial threat
Schedule A defendants named here have no formal finding in their favour. The plaintiff retains the right to refile with proper preparation. Companies selling electric drill plate cutters or similar power tool accessories on e-commerce platforms should treat this as a deferred — not resolved — enforcement risk and consider freedom-to-operate review of USD993734S.
Wuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsi v Partnerships — key questions answered
The case was filed on January 18, 2024 in the Illinois Southern District Court asserting design patent USD993734S over an electric drill plate cutter. It was dismissed without prejudice on January 26, 2024 — just 8 days after filing — after the plaintiff failed to submit a required proposed order for TRO consideration and a subsequent stay request was denied.
Dismissed without prejudice means the court terminated the case on procedural grounds without ruling on the merits of the infringement claims. The plaintiff retains the right to refile the same claims against the same defendants. No finding of non-infringement was made, and the Schedule A defendants received no formal adjudication in their favour.
USD993734S (application number US29/889387) is a US design patent covering the ornamental appearance of an electric drill plate cutter — a power tool accessory used to cut sheet materials. Design patents protect visual characteristics, not functional features. It was asserted by Wuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsi in this Schedule A infringement action.
The court record indicates the plaintiff was warned it needed to submit a proposed order for TRO consideration. Instead of complying, the plaintiff filed a motion on January 25 requesting a 30-day stay to decide whether to pursue the TRO. Judge Jenkins denied that stay request and immediately dismissed the case, suggesting the court required procedural compliance rather than a holding period.
Schedule A litigation is a common enforcement strategy where IP holders file a single complaint against large groups of anonymous e-commerce sellers, identifying defendants only by a confidential schedule. It is frequently used to obtain rapid TRO and asset freeze orders against marketplace infringers. This case followed that pattern but collapsed procedurally before any TRO was issued, illustrating the dependency of this strategy on prompt and correct TRO submissions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.