Yuanwen Gong v. Schedule A Defendants: Wall Lamp Design Patent Dispute Closed
Yuanwen Gong asserted design patent USD1002902S — covering a wall lamp ornamental design — against a group of anonymous online marketplace sellers in the Northern District of Illinois. The case closed after 319 days, with termination recorded as dismissed with prejudice, though the docket also reflects a voluntary dismissal without prejudice notice filed by counterclaimant VerRon Store.
Design Patent Assertion Against Online Sellers Ends After 319 Days
On April 12, 2024, plaintiff Yuanwen Gong filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-02985) against an unnamed group of defendants identified as partnerships and unincorporated associations listed in Schedule A. The sole patent asserted was USD1002902S (application number US29/860040), a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a wall lamp. This filing follows a widely used enforcement model targeting anonymous online sellers, typically operating through third-party e-commerce platforms.
The case closed on February 25, 2025. The basis of termination is recorded as dismissed with prejudice. However, the available docket reflects that counterclaimant VerRon Store — one of the Schedule A defendants — filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of its counterclaims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(c). The interplay between these two termination records is not fully resolved in the publicly available docket, and the precise terms governing each party’s exit from the litigation are not entirely clear from the public record alone.
The 319-day duration is consistent with Schedule A cases that reach a resolution before full merits adjudication, often driven by default judgments against non-appearing defendants or negotiated resolutions with those who do appear. The emergence of VerRon Store as a named counterclaimant is notable — it suggests at least one defendant actively engaged in litigation rather than defaulting. What specific terms, if any, governed the resolution between Gong and VerRon Store remains unknown from the available public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 319 days
319 days — slightly below average for N.D. Illinois design patent disputes
Dismissal with prejudice: what the termination record means for both parties
Dismissed with prejudice — but the record is layered
The court’s basis of termination is recorded as dismissed with prejudice, meaning the plaintiff’s claims cannot be refiled against the same defendants on the same patent. Separately, counterclaimant VerRon Store filed a Rule 41(c) notice voluntarily dismissing its counterclaims without prejudice — preserving VerRon’s right to refile those specific counterclaims. The two records reflect different procedural events affecting different parties’ claims.
Prejudice distinction mattersPlaintiff’s claims extinguished — no second filing against same defendants
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits of the plaintiff’s claims. Yuanwen Gong cannot reassert USD1002902S against the same Schedule A defendants in a new action. If the dismissal was negotiated, it likely reflects a resolution — potentially licensing or a covenant not to sue — rather than a litigation loss on the merits. The precise terms are not disclosed in the public record.
Claims cannot be refiledVerRon Store preserves counterclaim rights via Rule 41(c)
VerRon Store’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice of its counterclaims under Rule 41(c) means those claims — which could include invalidity or non-infringement counterclaims — remain alive and could theoretically be refiled. Most Schedule A defendants who do not appear face default judgment; VerRon’s active participation and Rule 41(c) filing suggests it secured a more favourable exit than non-appearing co-defendants likely received.
Counterclaims preservedSchedule A enforcement: design patents remain a credible tool against e-commerce sellers
This case is consistent with a well-established enforcement pattern in N.D. Illinois where design patent holders use Schedule A complaints to target clusters of online sellers. The strategy generates leverage through early TROs and asset freezes. The appearance of VerRon Store as a counterclaimant illustrates that at least some targeted sellers are willing to contest infringement claims, which can complicate and extend the litigation timeline for plaintiffs.
Schedule A enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Yuanwen Gong | Individual | Individual design patent holder — asserting USD1002902S covering wall lamp ornamental designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified in Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified collectively in Schedule A; VerRon Store emerged as a named counterclaimantSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Michael Dewitty | Attorney | Counsel for Yuanwen GongSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dewitty And Associates, Chtd. | Law Firm | Representing Yuanwen GongSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Georgia N Alexakis | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The termination record reflects a dismissed with prejudice outcome for the plaintiff’s claims, while the docket separately captures VerRon Store’s Rule 41(c) voluntary dismissal without prejudice of its counterclaims. These are distinct procedural events: the former forecloses Gong’s ability to refile against the same defendants; the latter preserves VerRon’s counterclaim rights. No merits adjudication occurred, and no court findings on infringement or validity of USD1002902S are reflected in the public record.
USD1002902S — Ornamental Design for a Wall Lamp
USD1002902S is a United States design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a wall lamp, filed under application number US29/860040. Design patents protect non-functional, aesthetic features — the visual impression a product makes on an ordinary observer. Unlike utility patents, they do not protect how a product works. The scope of protection is defined by the drawings in the patent, and infringement is assessed under the ordinary observer test established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa.
Wall lamp design patents are increasingly deployed in e-commerce enforcement campaigns, particularly against overseas sellers on platforms such as Amazon, Alibaba, and Temu. The visual commodity nature of lighting products makes design differentiation commercially significant — and legally actionable when competitors adopt substantially similar aesthetics. For product teams sourcing or designing wall lamps, USD1002902S represents a live enforcement risk that warrants FTO analysis before market entry.
Should your wall lamp product be cleared against USD1002902S?
Any company sourcing, manufacturing, or selling wall lamps through online marketplaces should assess exposure to USD1002902S. Design patent infringement turns on visual similarity under the ordinary observer test — functional differences offer no defence. Products with a similar silhouette, fixture profile, or decorative detail could attract an infringement claim even if the underlying mechanism differs. This risk is heightened for sellers operating on platforms actively monitored by Schedule A plaintiffs.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and IP teams to run rapid visual and claim-scope searches against USD1002902S and related design patents in the wall lamp and decorative lighting category. Eureka maps the design patent landscape, identifies overlapping design registrations, and surfaces prior art that may support invalidity arguments — equipping legal and R&D teams with the intelligence needed before a product reaches market or a takedown notice arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1002902S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Wall Lamp Design Patent Cases in N.D. Illinois
Schedule A design patent enforcement cases involving decorative lighting and wall lamps filed in the Northern District of Illinois share key procedural and strategic characteristics with this dispute.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement in e-commerce
This case illustrates both the reach and the limits of Schedule A design patent enforcement against online marketplace sellers.
N.D. Illinois remains the dominant venue for Schedule A design patent actions
Northern District of Illinois judges, including in this case, are well-versed in the Schedule A enforcement model. IP professionals monitoring e-commerce infringement risk should track this court’s evolving approach to TROs, asset freezes, and default judgments — all of which directly affect both enforcement strategy and seller exposure.
Active defendants can alter the litigation calculus significantly
VerRon Store’s filing of counterclaims and subsequent Rule 41(c) voluntary dismissal shows that engaged defendants can change the outcome dynamic. Sellers who appear and contest claims may secure more favourable exits — including preserved counterclaim rights — compared to non-appearing defendants who typically face default judgment and frozen assets.
Gong v Partnerships — key questions answered
USD1002902S is a United States design patent filed under application number US29/860040, protecting the ornamental appearance of a wall lamp. In Case No. 1:24-cv-02985, plaintiff Yuanwen Gong asserted this patent against a group of anonymous online sellers identified in Schedule A, alleging that their wall lamp products infringed the protected visual design.
The case closed on February 25, 2025, approximately 319 days after filing. The basis of termination is recorded as dismissed with prejudice, extinguishing the plaintiff’s ability to refile the same claims against the same defendants. Separately, counterclaimant VerRon Store filed a Rule 41(c) voluntary dismissal without prejudice of its counterclaims, preserving those claims for potential future proceedings.
Rule 41(c) permits a party that has filed a counterclaim to voluntarily dismiss that counterclaim. A dismissal without prejudice means the counterclaim is withdrawn without a merits ruling and can theoretically be refiled in a future proceeding. VerRon Store’s filing indicates it actively participated in the litigation rather than defaulting and secured an exit that preserved its counterclaim rights.
A Schedule A complaint is a multi-defendant patent infringement action in which the plaintiff files suit against a large number of anonymous online sellers, identified only by their marketplace store names listed in a Schedule A exhibit. Plaintiffs commonly seek ex parte temporary restraining orders and asset freezes at the outset. The Northern District of Illinois is the most common venue for this enforcement strategy, partly due to its receptiveness to early TRO applications in such cases.
No. A dismissal with prejudice reflects a procedural termination of the plaintiff’s claims — it is not a merits ruling on patent validity or infringement. In Schedule A cases, dismissals with prejudice typically result from negotiated resolutions, licensing agreements, or covenants not to sue rather than judicial findings. No court determination on the validity or infringement of USD1002902S was made in this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.