Xiamen Zhaozhao v. Fujian Gowoodhut: Pet House Design Patent Dismissed Without Prejudice
Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against three defendants over a pet house covered by USD955550S. After 378 days, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against two defendants without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), with each party bearing its own costs.
Design patent exit: Zhaozhao drops claims before defendants answer
On 5 December 2023, Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd., a Chinese e-commerce trading company and holder of pet house design patent USD955550S, filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Fujian Gowoodhut Ecommerce Ltd and two additional defendants — Gfd65dfged and Haikou Lingliangjiadianzikeji Youxiangongsi. The asserted patent, filed under application number US29/713325, covers the ornamental design of a pet house product.
On 17 December 2024, Xiamen Zhaozhao filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissing all causes of action against defendants Haikou Lingliangjiadianzikeji Youxiangongsi and Gfd65dfged without prejudice. The dismissal was available under Rule 41(a)(1) because neither defendant had filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The order confirmed each party would bear its own attorney’s fees and costs. The status of claims against the primary defendant Fujian Gowoodhut Ecommerce Ltd under this case record is not separately detailed in the public docket excerpt provided.
The 378-day duration from filing to closure is consistent with cases that resolve before substantive litigation begins. Voluntary dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile, suggesting this resolution may reflect strategic repositioning — such as settlement negotiations, jurisdictional reconsideration, or enforcement prioritisation — rather than a determination on the merits. The absence of defendant counsel on record and no pending motions further supports an early-exit interpretation, though the precise commercial driver remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 378 days
378 days from filing to close — consistent with early-stage voluntary exits before answer
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) allows dismissal before defendant answers
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order if the defendant has not yet filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here, neither defendant had done so, making the notice self-executing. No judicial approval was required, and the dismissal took effect upon filing. This is a procedural exit, not a ruling on the merits of the design patent infringement claims.
Rule 41(a)(1) — self-executing noticeWithout prejudice: the right to refile is preserved
The dismissal notice explicitly states ‘without prejudice’ as to defendants Haikou Lingliangjiadianzikeji Youxiangongsi and Gfd65dfged. This means Xiamen Zhaozhao retains the right to bring the same infringement claims again in the future. Had the dismissal been ‘with prejudice,’ refiling on the same claims would be permanently barred. The without-prejudice designation is significant — it leaves enforcement options open and does not amount to an admission that the design patent claims lacked merit.
Right to refile preservedDefendants exit without admitting liability — but risk remains
The two dismissed defendants — Gfd65dfged and Haikou Lingliangjiadianzikeji Youxiangongsi — are released from this action without any finding of infringement or liability. Each party bears its own costs. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, these defendants cannot treat this outcome as a permanent resolution. Xiamen Zhaozhao could reassert the same design patent claims in a future action, particularly if these sellers continue listing or selling the accused pet house products.
No liability found — resuit risk remainsDesign patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers: a common playbook
Cases of this type — design patent assertions by Chinese IP holders against Chinese e-commerce competitors in U.S. federal courts — are increasingly common on platforms selling consumer goods. Voluntary dismissal without prejudice before answer is consistent with out-of-court resolution or strategic pivot. For online sellers operating in the pet products category, this case signals that USD955550S remains an active enforcement asset. Competitors selling similar pet house designs should evaluate their exposure against this design registration.
Pet product IP — enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese e-commerce trading company — holder of pet house design patent USD955550SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fujian Gowoodhut Ecommerce Ltd | Company | Fujian-based e-commerce entity and two additional Chinese online sellers accused of design infringementSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Gfd65dfged | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Haikou Lingliangjiadianzikeji Youxiangongsi | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Jonathan Palmer | Attorney | Counsel for Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Andrew J. Palmer | Law Firm | Representing Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeremy C. Daniel | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1) and is explicit that the withdrawal is without prejudice as to defendants Haikou Lingliangjiadianzikeji Youxiangongsi and Gfd65dfged. No merits adjudication occurred — the court made no finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope of USD955550S. The cost-bearing provision (each party bears its own fees) is standard for uncontested voluntary dismissals. The without-prejudice designation is legally significant: Xiamen Zhaozhao retains the right to refile identical infringement claims, and the defendants cannot invoke res judicata or claim estoppel on these facts.
USD955550S — Ornamental design for a pet house
USD955550S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a pet house, filed under application number US29/713325. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the non-functional, visual characteristics of a product as depicted in the patent drawings. Unlike utility patents, design patents have a single claim — the design as shown — making the drawings the definitive legal boundary of protection. The patent is held by Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd., a Chinese trading company active in the U.S. e-commerce market.
In the competitive pet products e-commerce sector, design patents on consumer goods such as pet houses represent a meaningful IP enforcement tool. Chinese brand owners have increasingly filed U.S. design patents to protect product aesthetics against copycat listings on platforms like Amazon. USD955550S, if broadly drawn, could potentially reach a wide range of competing pet house products with similar visual profiles. The voluntary dismissal without prejudice in this case suggests the patent remains an active asset — patent holders in this space often cycle through enforcement actions against successive competitors.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD955550S?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or selling pet house products in the U.S. market should assess its exposure to USD955550S. Design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — whether an ordinary purchaser would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design. If your pet house product shares silhouette, proportions, surface ornamentation, or other visual elements with the drawings in USD955550S, a formal freedom-to-operate review is warranted — particularly given this patent’s demonstrated use in active litigation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can cross-reference the visual claim scope of USD955550S against your product design, map related design patent families held by Xiamen Zhaozhao, and surface prior art that may support invalidity arguments. For product and IP teams in the pet accessories space, early FTO analysis is more cost-effective than defending a U.S. district court action — especially given the Northern District of Illinois’s established procedures for multi-defendant design patent cases.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0955550S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases: pet products & e-commerce
Cases involving design patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers in the Northern District of Illinois, particularly in consumer pet product categories.
What this case signals for the pet product design patent landscape
E-commerce design patent enforcement is accelerating. This case illustrates how Chinese IP holders use U.S. courts to discipline competitors.
Without-prejudice exit keeps USD955550S as a live enforcement threat
Xiamen Zhaozhao’s voluntary withdrawal does not extinguish its design patent rights. The without-prejudice dismissal preserves the ability to refile against the same defendants or pursue others. Sellers of competing pet house designs in the U.S. market should treat this patent as actively monitored and potentially reasserted.
No answer filed: typical pattern in cross-border e-commerce IP actions
The absence of defendant counsel and no filed answers is a recurring pattern in U.S. actions targeting overseas e-commerce sellers. This structural asymmetry — plaintiff represented, defendants absent — often precedes default judgment motions or settlement. In this case, plaintiff chose voluntary dismissal instead, which may suggest parallel resolution channels were used.
Xiamen v Fujian — key questions answered
Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois on 5 December 2023 against Fujian Gowoodhut Ecommerce Ltd and two co-defendants over pet house design patent USD955550S. On 17 December 2024, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against two defendants without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
A without-prejudice dismissal means Xiamen Zhaozhao retains the right to refile the same infringement claims based on USD955550S against the same or different defendants in the future. No court found the patent invalid or the defendants non-infringing. The patent remains enforceable and should be treated as a live IP risk by competitors in the pet house product category.
Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order provided the defendant has not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. In this case, neither dismissed defendant had filed either document, making the self-executing notice of dismissal procedurally valid without requiring judicial approval.
USD955550S (application US29/713325) is a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a pet house as depicted in its patent drawings. Design patents protect visual aesthetics, not function. Infringement is assessed under the ordinary observer test — whether an ordinary purchaser would find the accused product substantially similar to the patented design. The specific drawings define the claim boundaries and should be reviewed for any FTO assessment.
The named defendants are Fujian Gowoodhut Ecommerce Ltd (primary defendant), Gfd65dfged, and Haikou Lingliangjiadianzikeji Youxiangongsi. The voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) explicitly covers Haikou Lingliangjiadianzikeji Youxiangongsi and Gfd65dfged. None of the defendants had legal representation on record, and none had filed answers or dispositive motions prior to dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.