Xiaoyun Chen v. Schedule A Defendants: Design Patent Win Over Counterfeit Ankle Skip Ball
Xiaoyun Chen, holder of ornamental design patent USD949243S covering an Ankle Skip Ball, sued a set of anonymous online sellers for distributing counterfeit versions of the design. After 609 days of litigation in the Southern District of Florida, judgment was entered for the plaintiff, with defendant SemiShare acknowledging full satisfaction of damages, costs, and interest.
Design patent enforced against counterfeit e-commerce sellers in SDFL
On August 18, 2023, Xiaoyun Chen filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 0:23-cv-61597) against an unnamed group of online sellers — styled as ‘The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — alleging infringement of USD949243S, a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of an Ankle Skip Ball. The complaint targeted counterfeit versions of that design sold through anonymous marketplace channels, a litigation model commonly used to address mass infringement on platforms such as Amazon and eBay.
The case closed on April 18, 2025 following a judgment on the merits in favor of the plaintiff entered on March 10, 2025. The satisfaction-of-judgment filing confirms that defendant SemiShare paid an agreed damages amount together with costs and interest, and that Chen fully released the judgment as to that defendant. The merits judgment and subsequent satisfaction represent a complete resolution on the plaintiff’s terms for at least this named defendant.
At 609 days, the case ran longer than many Schedule A enforcement actions, which frequently resolve through default judgment or early settlement. The extended timeline may reflect contested proceedings against one or more defendants before the final judgment. Because Schedule A complaints typically sweep in numerous sellers simultaneously, the public record does not confirm whether all defendants were resolved identically; the satisfaction acknowledgment is limited to SemiShare, leaving the broader enforcement outcome partially opaque.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 609 days
609 days — longer than the median Schedule A e-commerce case in SDFL
Judgment for plaintiff: what the ruling means for both parties
Judgment on the merits confirmed plaintiff’s design rights
A judgment on the merits means the court adjudicated the substantive infringement claim in the plaintiff’s favour rather than disposing of the case on procedural grounds. This carries greater legal weight than a default judgment: it reflects a finding that SemiShare’s products infringed the ornamental design of USD949243S. The subsequent satisfaction of judgment document confirms that the monetary remedy — damages, costs, and interest — was fully paid and the judgment extinguished as to SemiShare.
Merits judgment — design infringementChen secures full monetary recovery against SemiShare
The satisfaction of judgment confirms that Chen received the agreed damages amount plus costs and interest — a complete financial resolution as to SemiShare. The patent USD949243S remains in force and uninvalidated; no invalidity finding is recorded in the basis of termination. Chen can continue to assert the design patent against other Schedule A defendants or new infringers, with this judgment serving as a precedent signal for future enforcement actions.
Full satisfaction — patent survivesSemiShare paid agreed damages and received judgment release
By paying the agreed-upon damages, costs, and interest, SemiShare obtained a full release of the judgment — eliminating ongoing monetary liability in this action. However, the resolution does not constitute a finding that the design is invalid or unenforceable, meaning SemiShare (and any similarly situated sellers) would face renewed infringement exposure if counterfeit Ankle Skip Ball products resurface. The absence of a licence or consent decree in the public record suggests no long-term commercial relationship was formalised.
Judgment satisfied — no invalidity findingStrengthened enforcement signal for e-commerce design patent holders
This outcome reinforces the viability of Schedule A litigation as an enforcement mechanism for consumer product design patents in the Southern District of Florida. A merits-based judgment — as opposed to a default — carries stronger precedential weight when approached by future defendants. Marketplace sellers trading in ornamental consumer goods should treat this case as a signal that contested infringement actions can result in damages plus costs, not merely injunctive relief, raising the commercial risk of counterfeit design-identical products.
Design patent enforcement — marketplace riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Xiaoyun Chen | Individual | Consumer product design patent holder — holder of USD949243S (Ankle Skip Ball ornamental design)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers, including SemiShare, alleged to sell counterfeit Ankle Skip Ball productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Jonathan Palmer | Attorney | Counsel for Xiaoyun ChenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Palmer Law Group PA | Law Firm | Representing Xiaoyun ChenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Smith | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict language confirms two legally distinct events: a judgment on the merits entered March 10, 2025, and a subsequent satisfaction-of-judgment filing. The merits judgment establishes that infringement of USD949243S was found or conceded as to SemiShare. The satisfaction document — executed by the plaintiff — operates as a release of that judgment upon receipt of agreed damages, costs, and interest. Critically, the satisfaction does not vacate the merits finding; the infringement determination remains on record, and USD949243S is neither invalidated nor rendered unenforceable by this resolution.
USD949243S — Ornamental Design for an Ankle Skip Ball
USD949243S (application no. US29/777050) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of an Ankle Skip Ball — a rotating ankle-worn skipping toy. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of a functional article; they do not protect the underlying function. The application number prefix ’29/’ confirms this is a design patent application, distinct from utility patents. Protection runs for 15 years from grant under post-AIA rules, covering any product whose overall visual impression is substantially similar to the patented design.
Consumer fitness and novelty toy categories have seen significant counterfeit pressure on marketplace platforms, making design patent enforcement strategically important for small inventors and consumer product companies alike. USD949243S represents a targeted IP right over a specific aesthetic configuration; any seller offering a product with a substantially similar ornamental appearance — regardless of branding — risks infringement. The merits judgment in this case strengthens the patent’s commercial deterrence value, signalling to marketplace aggregators and white-label manufacturers that this design is actively policed.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD949243S?
Any company sourcing, manufacturing, or selling ankle skip balls, rotating ankle fitness toys, or visually similar jump-rope alternatives through online marketplaces should assess freedom-to-operate against USD949243S. Design patent infringement is determined by the ‘ordinary observer’ test — if a purchaser could mistake your product’s appearance for the patented design, infringement is plausible. Given that this patent survived contested litigation and resulted in a merits judgment, the risk profile for similar products is elevated relative to unlitigated design registrations.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD949243S against your product’s design drawings, identify related design patent families filed by the same applicant, and surface any continuation or continuation-in-part applications that may extend coverage. Eureka’s patent landscape tools can also identify third-party design patents in the ankle fitness toy and rotating skip ball category, giving your product team a comprehensive clearance view before launch or import.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0949243S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Cases in Florida Courts
Explore related Schedule A design patent infringement actions filed in the Southern District of Florida targeting counterfeit consumer product sellers on online marketplaces.
What this case signals for the consumer product design patent landscape
The Chen v. Schedule A outcome illustrates the growing teeth of design patent enforcement against anonymous e-commerce sellers.
Schedule A design patent suits can reach merits judgments — not just defaults
Many Schedule A cases resolve through default judgment when defendants fail to appear. This case’s merits judgment against SemiShare suggests at least one defendant contested the claim, and the plaintiff still prevailed. IP teams monitoring competitor enforcement should note that contested Schedule A actions in SDFL can yield full damages plus costs.
USD949243S remains valid and enforceable after this litigation
No invalidity counterclaim was sustained in the public record. The design patent covering the Ankle Skip Ball’s ornamental appearance survived the full litigation cycle intact. Any seller offering a design-identical product remains exposed. Companies sourcing similar jump-rope or ankle fitness toy designs should conduct FTO analysis against this patent before commercialising.
Chen v Individuals — key questions answered
The court entered a judgment on the merits in favour of plaintiff Xiaoyun Chen on March 10, 2025. Defendant SemiShare subsequently paid agreed damages, costs, and interest, and Chen filed a satisfaction of judgment, fully releasing the judgment as to SemiShare. The case closed April 18, 2025.
USD949243S (application US29/777050) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of an Ankle Skip Ball fitness toy. No invalidity finding was recorded in this case. The patent survived litigation intact and remains enforceable for its remaining statutory term.
Schedule A defendants are anonymous online sellers whose identities are listed in a sealed or attached schedule rather than named in the complaint caption. This structure is common in e-commerce IP enforcement actions targeting multiple marketplace sellers simultaneously, often in the Southern District of Florida.
The satisfaction of judgment filed by Chen is expressly limited to defendant SemiShare. It confirms SemiShare paid the agreed sum and was released from the judgment. Other defendants on Schedule A are not covered by this release and may face separate enforcement proceedings or outstanding judgments.
The case ran 609 days from filing (August 18, 2023) to closure (April 18, 2025). This is longer than many Schedule A actions, which frequently resolve via default within 6–12 months, suggesting contested proceedings or substantive motion practice occurred during the litigation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.