XYZ Corp v. Homyl LTD: Grape Cutter Design Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
XYZ Corporation and Shenzhen Xin Chang Tu Technology Co., Ltd brought a design patent infringement action against Homyl LTD and YuirXuam in the Southern District of Florida, asserting design patent USD1007996S covering a grape cutter. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims against Homyl LTD with prejudice after 361 days of litigation — permanently closing the door on refiling the same claims.
Design Patent Dispute Over Grape Cutter Ends in Prejudiced Dismissal
On March 7, 2024, XYZ Corporation and co-plaintiff Shenzhen Xin Chang Tu Technology Co., Ltd filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 1:24-cv-20901) against Homyl LTD and YuirXuam. The complaint asserted infringement of design patent USD1007996S (Application No. US29/899167), a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a grape cutter. Plaintiffs were represented by Felipe Rubio and Humberto Rubio Jr. of Rubio & Associates PA; no defense counsel appears on the public docket.
The case concluded on March 3, 2025, when plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims against Homyl LTD. A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits, meaning plaintiffs are permanently barred from reasserting the same design patent claims against Homyl LTD in any future action. The involvement of co-defendant YuirXuam and its disposition warrants independent review of the docket.
The 361-day duration suggests the parties may have reached a private resolution — settlement, licensing arrangement, or commercial exit — that made continued litigation unnecessary, though the public record is silent on any underlying agreement. The absence of defense counsel on the docket is consistent with patterns in consumer-product design patent cases targeting smaller e-commerce sellers. What drove the specific decision to dismiss with prejudice, rather than without, remains unknown from the public record alone.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 361 days
361 days — slightly below the median district court patent case lifecycle of ~2 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41 means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as a final merits bar
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is filed unilaterally by the plaintiff before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. The ‘with prejudice’ designation converts what is normally a plaintiff-controlled procedural step into a permanent bar — courts treat it as a final adjudication on the merits, preventing re-litigation of the same claims against the same defendant.
Permanent claim barWith prejudice confirmed — refiling is foreclosed
The public notice expressly states ‘with prejudice’, removing any ambiguity. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice — which preserves the right to refile within the applicable limitations period — this dismissal extinguishes plaintiffs’ ability to bring the same design patent claims against Homyl LTD again. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement agreement, licensing deal, or other consideration underlies the dismissal.
No refiling rightHomyl LTD exits litigation with permanent resolution
For Homyl LTD, the with-prejudice dismissal provides maximum finality: plaintiffs cannot revive infringement claims under USD1007996S in a future lawsuit. However, the absence of a court-adjudicated invalidity or non-infringement finding means the patent itself remains valid and enforceable. Homyl LTD should confirm that its current product configurations are still covered by the dismissal’s scope and monitor for enforcement by other rights holders.
Finality without invalidationPatent survives — enforcement risk persists for other sellers
Design patent USD1007996S remains in force and enforceable against other parties. The dismissal resolves only the dispute with Homyl LTD. Co-defendant YuirXuam’s status warrants separate verification. Other sellers of grape cutter products in comparable ornamental designs remain exposed to infringement claims. The case is consistent with a broader enforcement pattern targeting e-commerce consumer product sellers with design patents on kitchen tools.
Active patent, other sellers at riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Xyz Corporation | Company | Consumer product IP holder — holder of design patent USD1007996S (grape cutter ornamental design)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Shenzhen Xin Chang Tu Technology Co., Ltd | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Homyl LTD | Company | Homyl LTD — consumer product seller, alleged infringer of grape cutter design patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | YuirXuam | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Felipe Rubio | Attorney | Counsel for Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Humberto Rubio Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Firm of Rubio & Associates, PA | Law Firm | Representing Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rubio & Associates PA | Law Firm | Representing Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Melissa Damian | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming plaintiffs acted unilaterally — no court order was required because the notice was filed before Homyl LTD served an answer or summary judgment motion. The explicit ‘with prejudice’ language is legally operative: it renders the dismissal a final adjudication on the merits as to Homyl LTD only. No invalidity, non-infringement, or damages ruling was issued. Design patent USD1007996S remains fully enforceable against third parties.
USD1007996S — Ornamental Design for a Grape Cutter
USD1007996S (Application No. US29/899167) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance — not functional features — of a grape cutter. Design patents grant a 15-year term from grant date and are infringed when an ordinary observer would find the accused product’s appearance substantially similar to the patented design. The patent’s scope is defined entirely by the drawings; written description plays a minimal role. Filing under application number US29/899167 places this in the USPTO’s ornamental design examination track.
Design patents on kitchen tools have become significant IP assets in e-commerce-driven consumer product markets. A single design patent can be asserted against multiple sellers carrying visually similar SKUs on platforms such as Amazon or Alibaba. With Shenzhen Xin Chang Tu Technology Co., Ltd as co-plaintiff, the enforcement model here suggests the patent may anchor a broader campaign targeting competing importers of grape cutter designs. Competitors and retailers sourcing similar cutting tools should treat USD1007996S as an active enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1007996S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or retailing a grape cutter — or a similar small fruit-cutting kitchen tool — with ornamental features resembling the USD1007996S drawings faces potential infringement exposure. The dismissal of claims against Homyl LTD does not create a safe harbour for other sellers. Given the co-plaintiff’s Shenzhen address, the risk profile is particularly acute for importers sourcing from Chinese manufacturers of similar designs.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of USD1007996S against your product’s visual design, surface related design patent families held by the same assignees, and flag other active enforcement actions in the grape cutter and kitchen tool categories. Running an FTO now — before a cease-and-desist or ITC complaint arrives — is materially cheaper than litigation response.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1007996S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Infringement Cases — Kitchen Tools & Consumer Products
Cases involving design patent enforcement on consumer kitchen products in U.S. district courts, including the Southern District of Florida.
What this case signals for the consumer product design patent landscape
Design patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers is accelerating — this case illustrates both the leverage and the limits of that strategy.
With-prejudice dismissals signal private resolution, not weakness
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice after nearly a year of litigation, it typically signals an underlying commercial resolution — licensing, product exit, or settlement — rather than an abandonment of IP rights. The patent itself survives intact, preserving enforcement options against all other market participants.
Design patents on consumer tools are viable enforcement instruments
USD1007996S demonstrates that design patents covering kitchen and food-preparation tools can generate actionable litigation in federal court. E-commerce sellers carrying visually similar grape cutter designs should assess their exposure against the ornamental claims of this patent, particularly in the Southern District of Florida.
Xyz v Homyl — key questions answered
It means plaintiffs permanently relinquished their right to sue Homyl LTD again over the same design patent claims. Filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the with-prejudice designation operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Design patent USD1007996S itself remains valid and enforceable against all other parties.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal resolves only the claims against Homyl LTD. No court issued an invalidity or non-infringement ruling. USD1007996S (Application No. US29/899167) remains active and can be asserted against any other seller or manufacturer of a substantially similar grape cutter design.
The product at issue was a grape cutter. Plaintiffs alleged that Homyl LTD and YuirXuam infringed the ornamental design protected by U.S. design patent USD1007996S, which covers the visual appearance of a grape cutter kitchen tool.
A with-prejudice dismissal after nearly a year of litigation typically suggests the parties reached a private resolution — such as a licensing agreement, settlement payment, or product withdrawal — that satisfied the plaintiff’s commercial objectives. Dismissing with prejudice gives the defendant permanent finality in exchange, suggesting Homyl LTD likely received something of value. The public record does not confirm any underlying agreement.
The voluntary dismissal notice names only Homyl LTD as the dismissed defendant. Based on available public records, YuirXuam’s disposition in case 1:24-cv-20901 is not confirmed by the dismissal notice alone. Parties with commercial exposure to YuirXuam or related supply chains should independently verify the current docket status.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.