Yufeng Xing v. Schedule A Defendants: LED Ring Toss Design Patent Dismissed in 22 Days
Yufeng Xing filed a design patent infringement action in the Eastern District of New York asserting USD1019787S — an ornamental design for an LED ring toss game — against a broad Schedule A defendant class. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 22 days after filing, before any defendant served an answer or motion.
Design patent dispute over LED ring toss game ends before defendants respond
On October 21, 2024, Yufeng Xing filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, asserting U.S. Design Patent USD1019787S — covering the ornamental design of an LED ring toss game — against a group of unnamed defendants identified collectively on Schedule A. The Schedule A format is commonly used in e-commerce enforcement actions targeting multiple online sellers simultaneously.
On November 12, 2024, just 22 days after filing, plaintiff Yufeng Xing voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The notice explicitly confirmed that none of the defendants had served an answer or motion for summary judgment, satisfying the procedural threshold that permits unilateral voluntary dismissal without a court order. A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff retains the right to refile the same claims against the same defendants.
The 22-day lifecycle is consistent with Schedule A enforcement campaigns that resolve quickly — either through early settlements, licensing agreements, or strategic recalibration — before defendants formally appear. The public record does not disclose whether any defendant reached a resolution with the plaintiff prior to dismissal, nor whether Xing intends to refile. The absence of any defendant representation or responsive filing leaves the underlying merits of the design patent claim unexamined by the court.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 22 days
22 days — resolved before any defendant response was filed
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice: what the record shows and what it leaves open
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral dismissal before defendant responds
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here, no defendant had responded, so Xing could dismiss unilaterally. This is the most procedurally straightforward exit mechanism available to a plaintiff in U.S. federal litigation.
No court order requiredPlaintiff retains the right to refile — but for how long?
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying claim. Yufeng Xing may refile the same infringement action against the same defendants, subject to the applicable statute of limitations (generally six years for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 286). Crucially, the public record specifies ‘without prejudice’ explicitly — so there is no ambiguity here between a with- and without-prejudice dismissal. The merits of USD1019787S have not been adjudicated.
Refiling remains possibleDefendants exit without liability — but uncertainty persists
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the Schedule A defendants have not secured a final judgment in their favour. They face no current liability and owe no damages or fees. However, absent a licence or settlement, they remain exposed to a potential refiled action. Defendants who continued selling the accused LED ring toss game products should monitor Xing’s patent portfolio for renewed enforcement activity.
No final judgment for defendantsSchedule A tactics signal active design patent enforcement in novelty toy space
The Schedule A filing structure — targeting multiple unnamed online sellers in a single action — is a well-established tactic in U.S. e-commerce IP enforcement, frequently deployed against marketplace sellers on platforms such as Amazon and Alibaba. This case suggests that design rights in the LED games and novelty toy category are being actively monitored and enforced. Sellers and importers in this product segment should assess their exposure to USD1019787S and related ornamental design registrations.
E-commerce design enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Yufeng Xing | Individual | IP rights holder — asserting USD1019787S, ornamental design for an LED ring toss gameSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A | Company | Unnamed online sellers identified on Schedule A — typical e-commerce enforcement structureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph A. Farco | Attorney | Counsel for Yufeng XingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Norris McLaughlin PA | Law Firm | Representing Yufeng XingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New York Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice expressly invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and confirms that no defendant served an answer or motion for summary judgment. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ language forecloses any argument that the dismissal bars a future action — a point reinforced by the citation to Rule 41(a)(1)(B). No merits ruling was issued, and the validity and infringement scope of USD1019787S remain entirely open questions. The phrasing leaves Yufeng Xing in a tactically neutral position: no win, no loss, and full optionality to refile.
USD1019787S — Ornamental Design for an LED Ring Toss Game
USD1019787S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance — not the functional mechanics — of an LED ring toss game. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the visual and aesthetic characteristics of a product as depicted in the patent drawings. Infringement is assessed using the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary purchaser, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design.
Design patents in the novelty toy and outdoor game segment have become an increasingly common enforcement tool for product developers seeking to protect product aesthetics against low-cost copycat manufacturers, particularly those selling through online marketplaces. USD1019787S, asserted against a broad Schedule A class of defendants, suggests the rights holder views the design as commercially significant and potentially widely infringed across multiple e-commerce storefronts. Competitors should be alert to the scope of the drawings and any related pending applications.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against USD1019787S?
Any manufacturer, importer, or online seller offering LED ring toss games or visually similar outdoor toss game products should assess their exposure to USD1019787S. Because design patent infringement turns on visual similarity to the patented drawings — not on copying functional features — even independently developed products can infringe if they produce the same overall visual impression on an ordinary observer. Given the Schedule A enforcement posture, the risk is not limited to a single competitor.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the ornamental design landscape around LED ring toss games, identify prior art that may constrain the scope of USD1019787S, and surface any related continuation or divisional applications in Yufeng Xing’s portfolio. R&D and sourcing teams can use Eureka to benchmark proposed product designs against the patented drawings before launch, reducing the risk of receiving a takedown notice or being named in a future Schedule A action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1019787S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in the toy and games sector
Browse related design patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of New York and similar courts targeting online sellers of novelty toy and LED game products.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement in the novelty toy sector
A 22-day lifecycle in a Schedule A design patent case often signals off-record activity — and carries forward-looking risk for online sellers.
Schedule A dismissals rarely mean the dispute is resolved
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice in a Schedule A action frequently reflects early settlement negotiations or platform takedowns rather than a genuine concession. Online sellers who received takedown notices tied to this case should not assume the threat has passed — the plaintiff retains full rights to refile against any defendant who has not secured a written release.
USD1019787S remains enforceable and uncontested on the merits
No defendant challenged the validity or scope of USD1019787S in this action. The design patent — covering the ornamental appearance of an LED ring toss game — has not been subjected to IPR, reexamination, or judicial validity analysis. Competitors and sellers in the LED games category should treat the patent as presumptively valid and conduct design-around analysis before launching similar products.
Xing v Individuals — key questions answered
USD1019787S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of an LED ring toss game. In case 2:24-cv-07365, Yufeng Xing asserted this patent against a class of unnamed online sellers (Schedule A defendants) in the Eastern District of New York, alleging that their products infringed the patented visual design.
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) just 22 days after filing. No defendant had served an answer or responsive motion, which permitted the plaintiff to dismiss unilaterally. The public record does not disclose whether early settlements, licensing agreements, or strategic reasons drove the dismissal.
Not necessarily. A dismissal without prejudice explicitly preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims. Yufeng Xing may bring a new action against the same Schedule A defendants within the applicable statute of limitations (generally six years under 35 U.S.C. § 286), provided no written release was granted.
Schedule A filings are commonly used in e-commerce IP enforcement to sue multiple unnamed online sellers in a single action. The defendants — often marketplace sellers on platforms like Amazon — are identified by pseudonym or store name in an attached schedule rather than named individually in the complaint. This approach is efficient for rights holders targeting widespread infringement across many storefronts.
No. Because the case was dismissed before any defendant served an answer, the validity, enforceability, and infringement scope of USD1019787S were never adjudicated. The patent remains presumptively valid and has not been subjected to any inter partes review, reexamination, or judicial validity analysis as a result of this litigation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.