Xiaoling Che v. Schedule A Defendants: Puzzle Board Design Patent Case Dismissed
Plaintiff Xiaoling Che filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois over puzzle board products protected by USD1040241S. After the sole remaining defendant, Go North Group AB, filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York and allegedly violated a TRO by continuing to sell infringing products, Che voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice — closing the case in just 94 days.
Bankruptcy and TRO Violations Drive Rapid Dismissal of Puzzle Board IP Suit
On October 1, 2024, plaintiff Xiaoling Che filed this design patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a group of online marketplace sellers identified on Schedule A. The asserted patent, USD1040241S (application no. US29/910054), protects the ornamental design of puzzle board products. The case was assigned to Judge April M. Perry and pursued by Avek IP LLC on behalf of Che.
The case ended on January 3, 2025, when plaintiff’s counsel filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal followed two compounding developments: the sole remaining defendant, Go North Group AB, had filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York (case no. 24-cv-11498), and the defendant had allegedly continued selling infringing products in violation of a temporary restraining order already in place.
The 94-day resolution — while swift — reflects a strategic retreat rather than a win on the merits. Plaintiff’s counsel concluded that obtaining a judgment was ‘futile’ given the bankruptcy filing and the defendant’s apparent disregard for court orders. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Che retains the theoretical right to refile, though the defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings may practically foreclose meaningful recovery. The public record does not disclose whether Che filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 94 days
94 days — faster than the typical N.D. Ill. first-instance resolution
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41 dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff exits without court order
A notice of voluntary dismissal filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) requires no court approval and takes effect immediately upon filing, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment. The dismissal here is explicitly without prejudice, meaning the claims are not extinguished on the merits. Plaintiff retains the right to refile — subject to any applicable statute of limitations and the ‘two-dismissal rule’ under Rule 41(a)(1)(B).
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the public record is silent on finality
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s ability to refile the same claims. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would permanently bar re-litigation. The notice here expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ so Che’s design patent infringement claims against Go North Group AB survive in theory. However, the defendant’s pending bankruptcy proceedings in the S.D.N.Y. may impose an automatic stay that complicates any future enforcement action.
Claims survive; recovery uncertainEnforcement frustrated by bankruptcy and TRO breach
Che’s legal team acknowledged that proceeding was ‘futile’ once Go North Group AB entered bankruptcy, citing both the absence of collectible assets and the defendant’s alleged contempt of the TRO. The plaintiff secured no monetary judgment, no injunction on the final record, and no public admission of infringement. The practical ability to enforce USD1040241S against this defendant is now largely contingent on the outcome of the New York bankruptcy proceedings.
No recovery securedDesign patent enforcement against insolvent online sellers: a familiar pattern
Schedule A cases targeting e-commerce sellers of consumer goods face structural enforcement challenges: defendants are often foreign entities with limited U.S. assets, and insolvency filings can neutralise even successful TRO strategies. This case is consistent with a broader pattern where the costs of continued litigation outweigh recoverable damages once a defendant files for bankruptcy. Design patent holders in the puzzle, toy, and consumer goods space should factor defendant solvency into early-stage enforcement planning.
Solvency risk in e-commerce IP suitsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Xiaoling Che | Individual | Design patent holder asserting USD1040241S over ornamental puzzle board productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A, | Individual | Go North Group AB — online marketplace seller, later identified as sole remaining defendantSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Allen Justin Poplin | Attorney | Counsel for Xiaoling CheSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wangxue Deng | Attorney | Counsel for Xiaoling CheSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Avek IP LLC | Law Firm | Representing Xiaoling CheSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Clinton Lee Conner | Attorney | Counsel for The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Conner IP | Law Firm | Representing The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge April M. Perry | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice is explicit that the decision to exit was driven not by settlement or a merits concession, but by practical futility: the defendant’s bankruptcy filing and alleged TRO violation rendered continued litigation commercially irrational. Because no answer had been served by the sole remaining defendant at the time of filing, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permitted plaintiff’s counsel to dismiss as of right without court approval. The without-prejudice designation means USD1040241S infringement claims are legally preserved, but the defendant’s insolvency proceeding in the S.D.N.Y. significantly constrains future enforcement options.
USD1040241S — Ornamental Design for Puzzle Board Products
USD1040241S is a U.S. design patent, filed under application number US29/910054, protecting the ornamental appearance of puzzle board products. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover only the non-functional, aesthetic aspects of an article of manufacture. Protection is defined by the drawings in the patent, not written claims, making claim scope inherently visual. The patent’s designation ‘USD’ (U.S. Design) places it in a category that grants 15-year protection from the date of grant under current U.S. law.
In the competitive consumer goods and puzzle accessory market, design patents are frequently used to differentiate products on visual appearance and block copycat listings on platforms such as Amazon and Etsy. USD1040241S has not been adjudicated on its merits in this case, leaving its enforceability and scope untested in court. Competitors selling puzzle board products with visually similar ornamental designs remain at risk of infringement claims, and the patent’s status as unchallenged makes it a credible enforcement tool for future actions against solvent defendants.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1040241S?
Any company or seller manufacturing, importing, or listing puzzle board products with ornamental features visually similar to those shown in USD1040241S should treat this patent as an active design risk. Because this case ended without a merits ruling, there is no judicial finding of invalidity or non-infringement to rely on. Design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — a relatively low bar — and the patent has not been subjected to any IPR or post-grant review challenge that would narrow or invalidate it.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly identify the ornamental design scope of USD1040241S, surface similar pending design applications that could extend the plaintiff’s portfolio, and flag design-arounds adopted by competitors. For product teams developing puzzle accessories or board game components, running an Eureka FTO analysis before finalising product aesthetics is significantly cheaper than defending a future infringement notice or TRO application.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1040241S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Cases: Puzzle & Consumer Goods Schedule A Actions
Explore comparable design patent infringement cases in the N.D. Ill. involving Schedule A e-commerce defendants in the puzzle, toy, and consumer goods space.
What this case signals for consumer goods design patent enforcement
This dismissal highlights critical practical limits when asserting design patents against online marketplace sellers facing insolvency.
TRO violations do not guarantee a collectible judgment
Even when a defendant demonstrably breaches a court-ordered TRO — as alleged here — a plaintiff may still find it commercially irrational to pursue judgment if the defendant is insolvent. IP enforcement strategy must weigh litigation cost against realistic recovery, particularly in Schedule A e-commerce cases.
Without-prejudice dismissal preserves optionality but not leverage
Filing under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) exits cleanly and avoids adverse precedent, but once a defendant is in bankruptcy, the automatic stay regime in the S.D.N.Y. proceeding may prevent Che from refiling or enforcing USD1040241S against Go North Group AB without bankruptcy court approval.
Che v Partnerships — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on January 3, 2025, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Plaintiff Xiaoling Che withdrew all claims against Go North Group AB after the defendant filed for bankruptcy in the S.D.N.Y. and allegedly violated a court-ordered TRO. No merits ruling was issued.
The asserted patent is USD1040241S (application no. US29/910054), a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of puzzle board products. Design patents cover non-functional aesthetic features and are defined by their drawings rather than written claims.
A without-prejudice dismissal means the infringement claims are not extinguished on the merits and Che retains the right to refile. However, Go North Group AB’s pending bankruptcy in the S.D.N.Y. may impose an automatic stay on future enforcement actions against that entity. The patent itself remains in force and unchallenged.
Plaintiff’s dismissal notice alleges, and the court’s docket entry at [54] references, that the defendant ‘purposefully violated the TRO by continuing to sell infringing products while the TRO was in effect.’ This allegation is stated in the dismissal notice; no contempt judgment or sanctions order is reflected in the available case record.
Plaintiff’s counsel stated that proceeding was ‘futile’ because Go North Group AB had filed for bankruptcy, leaving no assets to collect, and had demonstrated it would not honour court orders. Under these circumstances, the cost of continuing litigation — including contempt proceedings — was assessed as commercially irrational relative to any realistic recovery.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.