Xiamen Zhaozhao v. Fuzhou PetsCosset: Pet House Design Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. filed suit against Fuzhou PetsCosset Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. in California’s Eastern District, asserting two design patents covering a pet house product. After 793 days of litigation, both parties stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each side bearing its own legal costs.
Two pet house design patents, one mutual exit after two-plus years
In August 2022, Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd., a China-based trading company, filed a patent infringement action against Fuzhou PetsCosset Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The dispute centred on two U.S. design patents — USD0958465S (application no. US29/713971) and USD0955550S (application no. US29/713325) — both protecting the ornamental design of a pet house product sold in the U.S. consumer market.
The case closed on 30 October 2024 via a stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Both Zhaozhao’s infringement claims and PetsCosset’s counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice simultaneously, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees. Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — neither party may re-litigate the same claims in any future proceeding.
At 793 days, the case ran considerably longer than many design patent disputes that settle early. The mutual nature of the dismissal — covering both claims and counterclaims simultaneously, with no fee award — is consistent with a negotiated resolution, though the financial or licensing terms, if any, remain undisclosed in the public record. The symmetric cost-bearing provision suggests neither party secured a clearly superior outcome in any confidential settlement discussions.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 793 days
793 days — longer than the median U.S. district court patent case before resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): a jointly negotiated exit
A stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires written consent from all parties who have appeared. It is a procedural mechanism that closes the case on agreed terms — not a judicial finding on the merits. Because both claims and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice, the court is not required to make any ruling on infringement, validity, or any substantive issue.
Mutual stipulated dismissalInfringement claims permanently closed — no court victory on record
Zhaozhao’s infringement claims are extinguished with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled. The plaintiff gave up the right to pursue these specific claims against PetsCosset. However, the design patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties — the dismissal resolves only this bilateral dispute. Whether Zhaozhao received any commercial concession in a side agreement is not reflected in the public record.
Patents remain enforceableCounterclaims dropped — no invalidity ruling secured
PetsCosset’s counterclaims — likely challenging validity or non-infringement of the asserted design patents — are also dismissed with prejudice. This means PetsCosset did not obtain a judicial declaration that the patents are invalid or not infringed. The patents survive intact. PetsCosset’s exposure to any future design patent claims from Zhaozhao relating to the same products may be addressed only through whatever private terms, if any, accompanied this stipulation.
No invalidity finding obtainedDesign patent risk persists in the pet products e-commerce space
Both parties are China-based sellers operating in the U.S. consumer pet products market — a segment with high design patent filing activity. The with-prejudice dismissal on both sides without fee-shifting is consistent with a pragmatic commercial resolution. Other market participants selling pet house designs should note that the asserted design patents remain live; this outcome does not establish a public invalidity record that third parties could rely upon.
Design patents still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | China-based trading company — holder of design patents USD0958465S and USD0955550SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fuzhou PetsCosset Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. | Company | China-based e-commerce company accused of infringing pet house design patentsSearch 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 PetsCosset Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nihat Deniz Bayramoglu | Attorney | Counsel for Fuzhou PetsCosset Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shawn Anthony Mangano | Attorney | Counsel for Fuzhou PetsCosset Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC | Law Firm | Representing Fuzhou PetsCosset Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gokalp Bayramoglu | Law Firm | Representing Fuzhou PetsCosset Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge P. Casey Pitts | Judge | California Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation explicitly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), confirming this is a consent-based procedural closure rather than any judicial determination on the merits. The with-prejudice designation on both the plaintiff’s claims and the defendant’s counterclaims is legally significant: it operates as a final judgment, barring re-litigation of the same causes of action. The mutual cost-bearing clause removes any fee-shifting incentive, suggesting the parties reached a practical equilibrium — likely commercial rather than purely legal in nature.
USD0958465S & USD0955550S — Ornamental design patents for a pet house
USD0958465S (app. no. US29/713971) and USD0955550S (app. no. US29/713325) are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of a pet house. Design patents in this category cover the non-functional, visual characteristics of a product — such as its shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation. The US29/ application series indicates these are design patent filings, which typically proceed faster than utility patents and grant a 15-year term from issuance under post-AIA rules.
In the competitive U.S. pet products market — heavily supplied by Chinese manufacturers — design patents provide a relatively low-cost tool to differentiate products and challenge copycat listings on e-commerce platforms. Asserting two co-pending design patents covering variations of the same product is a common enforcement strategy, creating broader visual claim coverage. Both patents survived this litigation without any invalidity ruling, meaning they remain fully enforceable assets against any third party selling a confusingly similar pet house design.
Should you run an FTO against USD0958465S and USD0955550S?
Any company designing, importing, or selling pet house products in the U.S. — particularly through Amazon, Chewy, or other e-commerce channels — should treat these two design patents as active enforcement risks. Both patents emerged from this litigation with no invalidity finding, and Xiamen Zhaozhao has demonstrated willingness to litigate in U.S. federal court. A freedom-to-operate review should assess whether your product’s ornamental design falls within the visual scope of either patent under the ordinary observer test.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and IP teams to map live design patent claims against specific product configurations, identify prosecution history, and surface design-around options. For pet house and pet shelter products, Eureka can pinpoint co-pending design applications from the same applicant — revealing the full scope of a design patent family before you make sourcing or listing decisions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0958465S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases: pet products & e-commerce
Explore comparable U.S. design patent disputes involving pet products and Chinese e-commerce parties in federal district courts, including the Eastern District of California.
What this case signals for the pet products design patent landscape
Cross-border design patent disputes in the pet products sector are rising. This case highlights the litigation risk facing e-commerce importers.
Design patents are an accessible enforcement tool for Chinese exporters
Both plaintiff and defendant are China-based entities competing in the U.S. pet products market. The use of U.S. design patents — which are relatively low-cost to obtain and assert — as a competitive weapon between Chinese e-commerce sellers is a growing trend. Companies importing pet house products should audit their product designs against live U.S. design patent portfolios before entering the market.
With-prejudice dismissals without fee awards suggest private resolution
The symmetric structure of this dismissal — mutual with-prejudice, each side bears own costs — typically signals a negotiated outcome, potentially including a licensing arrangement, product design change, or market division. IP professionals should treat these patterns as indicators of commercial settlement activity even when financial terms are not disclosed in the public record.
Xiamen v Fuzhou — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 30 October 2024 after 793 days, following a stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Both Zhaozhao’s infringement claims and PetsCosset’s counterclaims were mutually dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs. No court ruling on infringement or validity was issued.
Xiamen Zhaozhao asserted two U.S. design patents: USD0958465S (application no. US29/713971) and USD0955550S (application no. US29/713325). Both patents protect the ornamental design of a pet house product. They remain valid and enforceable following the dismissal.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Zhaozhao from re-filing the same infringement claims against PetsCosset, and bars PetsCosset from re-pursuing the same counterclaims. However, it does not invalidate the patents. USD0958465S and USD0955550S remain fully enforceable against any other party selling a confusingly similar pet house design.
The public record does not disclose the precise reasons for the extended duration. Cases of this type typically involve discovery, claim construction proceedings, and motion practice before parties reach a resolution. The 793-day timeline suggests substantive litigation activity occurred before the parties agreed to a mutual dismissal, possibly including development of invalidity or non-infringement arguments through counterclaim proceedings.
Yes. The stipulated dismissal with prejudice resolves only the dispute between Zhaozhao and PetsCosset. No court issued a ruling on invalidity or non-infringement. Both design patents survive intact and Xiamen Zhaozhao retains the right to enforce them against third parties, including other sellers of similar pet house products in the U.S. market.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.