Xiamen Zhaozhao v. Fuzhou Duofen: Pet Product Design Patent Dispute Ends in Mutual Dismissal
Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. filed suit against Fuzhou Duofen Pet Products Co., Ltd. in the Northern District of California asserting two design patents covering cat houses and wooden pet cage designs. After 791 days of litigation, both parties stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each bearing its own legal costs.
Two Chinese Pet Product Rivals Resolve Design Patent Fight After Two Years
On 29 August 2022, Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. filed an infringement action against Fuzhou Duofen Pet Products Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:22-cv-04940), asserting two design patents — USD958465S (Application No. 29/713971) and USD955550S (Application No. 29/713325) — covering the ornamental designs of cat houses and wooden pet cage products. Both companies are Chinese pet product manufacturers, and the dispute reflects the increasingly competitive U.S. market for e-commerce pet accessories.
The case closed on 28 October 2024 via a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissing all of Zhaozhao’s infringement claims against Duofen with prejudice, and simultaneously dismissing all of Duofen’s counterclaims against Zhaozhao with prejudice. Crucially, neither party recovered costs, expenses, or attorneys’ fees. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law, meaning Zhaozhao cannot re-file the same infringement claims in any federal court.
At 791 days, the litigation ran for over two years before resolution, which suggests the parties engaged in substantive discovery or claim construction proceedings before reaching their stipulation. The mutual dismissal with prejudice and symmetric cost allocation is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution — possibly including a licensing arrangement or design modification agreement — though the public record does not disclose any settlement terms. The fact that counterclaims were also dismissed with prejudice suggests Duofen had raised validity or non-infringement defenses that were also resolved by agreement.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 791 days
791 days — above the median duration for design patent cases resolved by stipulated dismissal in N.D. Cal.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — stipulated dismissal with prejudice
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), both parties signed a joint stipulation to dismiss. The ‘with prejudice’ designation converts this procedural exit into a final judgment on the merits. Zhaozhao cannot re-file these infringement claims based on the same patents and the same accused products. This is the most legally conclusive form of voluntary dismissal available to litigants.
Final — no re-filing permittedZhaozhao cannot revive these specific claims
As plaintiff, Zhaozhao agreed to dismiss its infringement claims with prejudice. While USD958465S and USD955550S remain in force as issued patents, Zhaozhao is barred from reasserting these exact claims against Duofen on the same accused products. The patents themselves retain enforceability against other parties, but this defendant is effectively immunised from re-litigation on these claims under res judicata principles.
Patents survive; this defendant is shieldedDuofen’s counterclaims also closed with prejudice
Duofen filed counterclaims — likely asserting invalidity or non-infringement — which were also dismissed with prejudice. This means Duofen cannot later re-litigate those counterclaim theories in a new action. Both parties accepted a symmetric legal closure, which typically signals a negotiated resolution rather than capitulation by either side. The specific commercial terms, if any, remain undisclosed.
Symmetric closure — no clear winnerDesign patent risk persists for pet product sellers on U.S. platforms
This case is one of a pattern of design patent disputes between Chinese manufacturers competing in the U.S. e-commerce pet accessories market. The mutual dismissal does not resolve the underlying design freedom-to-operate questions for third parties. Other sellers of similar cat house or wooden pet cage designs face independent exposure to USD958465S and USD955550S, which remain active and enforceable. Product teams should treat these patents as live enforcement risks.
Design FTO risk remains for marketFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese pet product manufacturer and e-commerce seller — holder of USD958465S and USD955550SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fuzhou Duofen Pet Products Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese pet product manufacturer — seller of Ketive Wooden Pet Cage Houses in the U.S. market.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Jeanchung Tsai | Attorney | Counsel for Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Steger | Attorney | Counsel for Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Surui Qu | Attorney | Counsel for Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gokalp Bayramoglu | Attorney | Counsel for Fuzhou Duofen Pet Products Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nihat Deniz Bayramoglu | Attorney | Counsel for Fuzhou Duofen Pet Products Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shawn Anthony Mangano | Attorney | Counsel for Fuzhou Duofen Pet Products Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC | Law Firm | Representing Fuzhou Duofen Pet Products Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gokalp Bayramoglu | Law Firm | Representing Fuzhou Duofen Pet Products Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation explicitly invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and specifies ‘WITH PREJUDICE’ for both Zhaozhao’s claims and Duofen’s counterclaims — an unusually complete bilateral closure. The symmetric cost-bearing provision removes any inference of concession by either party. Courts treat such stipulations as final judgments, activating res judicata. The breadth of the language — covering ‘all claims’ and ‘all counterclaims’ — forecloses any residual litigation between these parties on the asserted patents and accused products.
USD958465S & USD955550S — Ornamental Designs for Cat Houses and Wooden Pet Cages
USD958465S (App. No. 29/713971) and USD955550S (App. No. 29/713325) are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of cat houses and wooden pet cage enclosures respectively. Design patents cover the visual characteristics — shape, configuration, and ornamentation — rather than functional features. They are comparatively fast to obtain and enforce, and their infringement standard (the ‘ordinary observer’ test) can be expansive, making them potent tools in product-adjacent disputes.
In the competitive pet accessories market — particularly the fast-moving segment of wooden and modular pet furniture sold via e-commerce — design patents confer meaningful first-mover protection. A competitor offering a visually similar product risks infringement even if the underlying construction is different. With both patents held by Xiamen Zhaozhao and still in force, any manufacturer or importer of structurally similar cat house or pet cage designs targeting the U.S. market should treat these rights as active enforcement risks requiring clearance.
Should you run an FTO against USD958465S and USD955550S?
If your company designs, imports, or sells cat houses, wooden pet enclosures, or visually adjacent pet furniture in the U.S. market — especially through Amazon, Chewy, or similar e-commerce platforms — these two design patents warrant an FTO review. The dismissal in this case protects only Fuzhou Duofen, not the broader market. Zhaozhao retains full enforcement rights against new entrants.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD958465S and USD955550S against your product designs, identify design-around opportunities, and flag related applications or continuations in Zhaozhao’s portfolio. Use Eureka to run a targeted ornamental design clearance before launching or expanding your pet housing product line in the U.S.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD958465S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Cases in Pet Products and Home Goods — N.D. Cal.
Cases involving competing Chinese manufacturers asserting U.S. design patents over pet furniture and enclosures in the Northern District of California.
What this case signals for the pet product design patent landscape
Chinese manufacturer-versus-manufacturer disputes in U.S. courts are rising. This case illustrates how design patents are becoming a competitive weapon in the pet accessories e-commerce sector.
Design patents are being used as competitive tools in pet e-commerce
The assertion of two ornamental design patents covering cat houses against a direct Chinese competitor reflects a broader trend: manufacturers filing U.S. design patents as offensive IP to challenge rivals on Amazon and similar platforms. Companies operating in this space should audit their product portfolios against registered design rights held by competitors.
Symmetric with-prejudice dismissal suggests a negotiated exit
When both claims and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice and costs are split equally, it typically signals the parties reached a private commercial arrangement — a licensing deal, product differentiation agreement, or market allocation understanding. The 791-day duration suggests substantive proceedings occurred before any resolution was reached.
Xiamen v Fuzhou — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on 28 October 2024. Both Zhaozhao’s infringement claims and Duofen’s counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, and each party bore its own costs and attorneys’ fees. No court judgment on the merits was issued.
Zhaozhao asserted two U.S. design patents: USD958465S (Application No. 29/713971) and USD955550S (Application No. 29/713325). Both patents cover ornamental designs for cat houses and wooden pet cage enclosures. Both patents remain in force following the dismissal.
A dismissal with prejudice bars Zhaozhao from re-filing the same infringement claims against Fuzhou Duofen on the same accused products. However, the patents themselves — USD958465S and USD955550S — remain valid and enforceable. Zhaozhao retains full rights to assert them against any other party selling visually similar products.
Under the stipulation, Duofen’s counterclaims — likely asserting invalidity or non-infringement — were also dismissed with prejudice as part of the bilateral resolution. This symmetry suggests the parties negotiated a comprehensive exit, potentially including commercial terms not disclosed in the public record. Duofen cannot revive those counterclaim theories in future proceedings.
The case resolution only protects Fuzhou Duofen from Zhaozhao’s specific claims. Other companies selling visually similar cat house or wooden pet cage designs in the U.S. — particularly through e-commerce channels — remain exposed to infringement claims under USD958465S and USD955550S. A freedom-to-operate analysis against those patents is advisable before entering or expanding in this product category.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.