Xiamen Zhaozhao v. Schedule A Defendants: Outdoor Cat House Design Patent Dismissed
Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. filed suit in Florida’s Southern District against unnamed online marketplace sellers alleging infringement of USD965,465S, a design patent covering an outdoor cat house. After 526 days of litigation, three named defendants were dismissed without prejudice, closing the case without a merits ruling.
Design patent dismissed without prejudice after 526-day Schedule A campaign
On 16 July 2023, Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd., a Chinese trading company, filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against a broad class of anonymous online sellers identified only as ‘The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ The asserted patent, USD965,465S (application no. US29/796999), is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of an outdoor cat house product.
The case closed on 23 December 2024 when defendants Geguri Direcct, Manastin Direct, and SDHYL Direct were dismissed without prejudice by Judge Rodney Smith. A dismissal without prejudice means no final judgment on the merits was entered; Xiamen Zhaozhao retains the legal ability to refile claims against these parties, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. The defendants received no formal exoneration, and the design patent itself remains unchallenged and in force.
The 526-day duration is notably extended for a Schedule A action, which often resolves quickly through default judgments or early settlements. The absence of any recorded defendant legal representation throughout the docket is consistent with the anonymous seller model typical of these cases, where defendants may evade service or simply abandon the dispute. What drove the decision to dismiss without prejudice — rather than pursue default judgment — is not apparent from the public record, and the commercial terms, if any, remain undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 526 days
526 days — above the median for Schedule A design patent cases in S.D. Fla.
Dismissed without prejudice: what this ruling means for both sides
Dismissed without prejudice — no merits ruling, door stays open
A dismissal without prejudice terminates the current case but does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the same claims against the same defendants. Unlike a dismissal with prejudice, no final judgment on the merits is issued. The underlying design patent, USD965,465S, is unaffected — it has not been invalidated, narrowed, or challenged through this proceeding. The court simply closed the case as to these three defendants.
No merits adjudicationXiamen Zhaozhao preserves its right to refile
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Xiamen Zhaozhao retains the option to reinstate claims against Geguri Direcct, Manastin Direct, and SDHYL Direct within the applicable limitations period. The patent itself is unimpaired, and the company remains free to assert USD965,465S in new or continued enforcement actions. Whether the dismissal reflects a confidential settlement, inability to serve, or a strategic retreat is not disclosed in the public record.
Refiling option preservedNamed defendants exit — but face no formal clearance
The three named defendants — Geguri Direcct, Manastin Direct, and SDHYL Direct — are no longer parties to this action and face no judgment, injunction, or damages award from this case. However, a dismissal without prejudice does not constitute a ruling that their products were non-infringing. They remain potentially exposed to future claims under USD965,465S and should not treat this outcome as a freedom-to-operate clearance.
Not exonerated on the meritsDesign patent enforcement risk persists for cat house sellers
Schedule A litigation targeting online marketplace sellers of pet accessories is an active enforcement strategy. USD965,465S remains a live design patent capable of being re-asserted. Other sellers of similar outdoor cat house products operating on platforms such as Amazon or eBay should treat this outcome as a signal that the patent holder is actively monitoring the market, not as evidence of a weakened or abandoned IP position.
Active enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese trading company — holder of design patent USD965,465S (outdoor cat house)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified on Schedule A and Amended Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Amended Schedule A | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Jonathan Palmer | Attorney | Counsel for Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Palmer Law Group PA | Law Firm | Representing Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Smith | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order dismissing Geguri Direcct, Manastin Direct, and SDHYL Direct without prejudice is a procedural termination, not a substantive ruling on infringement or patent validity. The phrasing ‘dismissed without prejudice’ and the simultaneous closure of the case indicates no default judgment or consent order was entered for these defendants. The design patent USD965,465S is not impaired by this order, and Xiamen Zhaozhao’s cause of action survives as a live claim capable of reassertion within limitations.
USD965,465S — ornamental design for an outdoor cat house
USD965,465S (application number US29/796999) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of an outdoor cat house. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the visual and aesthetic characteristics of a product — not its functional elements. Protection is defined by the patent’s drawings and figures, and infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary observer would consider the accused product substantially the same in appearance as the patented design.
The outdoor cat house market is heavily served by Chinese manufacturers selling directly on Amazon, eBay, Walmart Marketplace, and similar platforms. Design patents in this product category are increasingly used as enforcement tools to differentiate between visually similar listings. USD965,465S gives Xiamen Zhaozhao a legal basis to seek temporary restraining orders against marketplace accounts, making it a commercially significant asset even if the aesthetic differences between competing products appear minor to a casual observer.
Should you run an FTO search against USD965,465S before selling an outdoor cat house?
Any manufacturer, importer, or online seller offering an outdoor cat house product in the U.S. market should assess design clearance against USD965,465S before listing. Design patent infringement does not require copying — an independently developed product can infringe if an ordinary observer would find it substantially similar in appearance to the patented design. Given the active enforcement posture demonstrated in this case, market entry without FTO diligence carries meaningful injunction and account-suspension risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD965,465S against your product’s appearance, surface visually similar granted design patents in the outdoor pet shelter category, and flag continuation or continuation-in-part applications that may extend the effective protection period. For e-commerce-focused brands, Eureka can also identify the full design patent portfolio of Xiamen Zhaozhao, enabling proactive clearance across related product lines before a Schedule A action is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0965465S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in S.D. Florida — pet accessories
Browse comparable Schedule A design patent enforcement actions in the S.D. Florida district court targeting online marketplace sellers of pet and outdoor accessory products.
What this case signals for the pet accessory design patent IP landscape
Schedule A design patent actions in S.D. Fla. are a systematic enforcement tool — this outcome offers critical read-throughs for online sellers and IP teams.
Dismissal without prejudice is not a safe harbour for marketplace sellers
When a Schedule A action closes without prejudice, the patent holder retains full enforcement rights. Sellers of outdoor cat house products — particularly those using similar ornamental designs — should not interpret this dismissal as a signal that USD965,465S is unenforceable or abandoned. A design patent FTO search remains prudent before listing similar products.
The Schedule A model systematically targets anonymous e-commerce defendants
This case follows the established S.D. Fla. playbook: file against anonymous Schedule A defendants, seek a TRO to freeze marketplace accounts, then pursue named sellers. The 526-day duration suggests some defendants engaged or resisted service rather than defaulting immediately — an uncommon dynamic worth monitoring in future filings by this plaintiff.
Xiamen v Individuals — key questions answered
Xiamen Zhaozhao filed a design patent infringement action in the Southern District of Florida in July 2023 asserting USD965,465S over an outdoor cat house design. The case closed on 23 December 2024 when defendants Geguri Direcct, Manastin Direct, and SDHYL Direct were dismissed without prejudice. No merits ruling was issued.
A dismissal without prejudice leaves the plaintiff’s claims intact. Xiamen Zhaozhao retains the right to refile suit against the same defendants within the applicable statute of limitations. The design patent USD965,465S is unaffected by the dismissal and remains enforceable against other potential infringers.
The case centres on USD965,465S (application no. US29/796999), a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of an outdoor cat house. Design patents cover visual characteristics only — not functional features — and infringement is assessed using the ordinary observer test.
No. A dismissal without prejudice is a procedural outcome, not a ruling on the merits. The court made no finding that these defendants’ products did not infringe USD965,465S. They face no current judgment but are not formally exonerated and remain potentially exposed to future claims.
The typical Schedule A action targets anonymous defendants who may not respond, leading to quick default judgments. When defendants do engage — or when service is contested — the timeline extends significantly. This case lasted 526 days, suggesting at least some of the named defendants participated in the proceedings rather than simply defaulting, though the full procedural history is not publicly detailed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.