Yunshang Electronics v. R & Y Group: Cooling Mask Design Patent Dismissed in 21 Days
Yunshang Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd filed a design patent infringement action against R & Y Group LLC in the Southern District of Florida, asserting design patent USD965959S covering an aroma cooling mask. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 21 days after filing, with each side bearing its own fees and costs.
A 21-Day Design Patent Skirmish Over Cooling Mask Aesthetics
On October 28, 2024, Yunshang Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd — a Chinese electronics and consumer goods manufacturer — filed a design patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against R & Y Group LLC. The dispute centred on design patent USD965959S (application no. US29/747197), which protects the ornamental appearance of a cooling/aroma mask product. Accused products included the Aroma Season Cooling Mask, FOMI Gel Ice Hat, Migraine Ice Hat, Olga heat and cold applicator, Qnoon, and Yanming Ice Hat.
Yunshang filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice on November 18, 2024, invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Judge Paul C. Huck ordered the action dismissed without prejudice, denied all pending motions as moot, and directed each side to bear its own fees and costs. The case closed the same day — just 21 days after it was filed. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Yunshang retains the legal right to refile the same claims in the future.
The exceptionally short lifecycle — 21 days — suggests the filing may have served a strategic purpose beyond trial, such as prompting a licensing discussion, obtaining a business commitment, or preserving rights ahead of a commercial deadline. No merits ruling was issued, so the validity and enforceability of USD965959S remain untested. What drove the voluntary withdrawal, and whether any private agreement was reached between the parties, is not apparent from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 21 days
21 days — resolved before any substantive motions could be decided
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice: what the order means for both parties
Rule 41(a) gives plaintiffs a clean exit — for now
A Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a procedural tool that terminates the current action without adjudicating its merits. Critically, it does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the same claims. The court’s order — which denied all pending motions as moot — means no substantive rulings were made on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The slate is wiped clean procedurally, but the underlying IP dispute is unresolved.
No merits decidedWithout prejudice vs. with prejudice: a critical distinction
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile; a dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would extinguish that right permanently. The court’s order here is explicitly without prejudice. Whether the parties reached a private settlement, a licensing arrangement, or simply agreed to stand down is not disclosed in the public record. The legal effect is clear; the commercial rationale is not.
Refiling remains possibleR & Y Group escapes judgment — but faces lingering patent risk
R & Y Group avoids an infringement finding and any damages award. Each party bears its own costs, so no fee-shifting occurred. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, the design patent USD965959S remains active and asserted against similar product categories. R & Y Group should treat this outcome as a pause, not a resolution — continued sale of accused cooling mask products carries forward-looking infringement risk if Yunshang refiles.
No infringement findingDesign patent enforcement in the cooling wearables market stays live
The dismissal without prejudice keeps competitive pressure in the cooling mask and gel ice hat product category intact. Other sellers of aesthetically similar products — ice hats, migraine masks, cooling caps — should note that USD965959S has not been invalidated or found non-infringed. Yunshang retains full enforcement rights. Market participants sourcing or reselling products with similar ornamental designs should conduct design-around analysis before expanding SKUs.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Yunshang Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd | Company | Consumer electronics exporter (Shenzhen) — holder of design patent USD965959SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | R & Y Group, Limited Liability Company | Company | R & Y Group LLC — U.S. seller of gel ice hat and cooling mask productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brandon Todd Holmes | Attorney | Counsel for Yunshang Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Luca Lee Hickman | Attorney | Counsel for Yunshang Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ruoting Men | Attorney | Counsel for Yunshang Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | Law Firm | Representing Yunshang Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Glacier Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Yunshang Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ury Fischer. | Attorney | Counsel for R & Y Group, Limited Liability CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lott & Fischer PL | Law Firm | Representing R & Y Group, Limited Liability CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Paul C. Huck | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the plaintiff’s Rule 41(a) notice verbatim and adds a costs rider — each side bears its own fees. The phrase ‘DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE’ is legally operative: no infringement finding, no validity ruling, no claim construction occurred. The denial of all pending motions as moot confirms the case never advanced beyond initial pleadings. For design patent practitioners, the absence of any substantive order means USD965959S carries no litigation history that could be used against Yunshang in future proceedings.
USD965959S — Ornamental Design for an Aroma Cooling Mask
Design patent USD965959S (U.S. application no. 29/747197) protects the ornamental appearance — not the functional technology — of a cooling mask or ice hat worn on the head. Design patents in the U.S. have a term of 15 years from grant and are examined against a prior art standard of ornamental distinctiveness. Because this is a design patent, infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary purchaser would believe the accused product is the same as the patented design.
The cooling wearable category — encompassing migraine caps, gel ice hats, and aroma therapy masks — is a fast-growing consumer health segment driven by e-commerce and direct import. Design patents in this space offer a relatively low-cost enforcement mechanism because they attach to visual product appearance rather than internal mechanism. Any seller, importer, or retailer whose cooling mask product shares the ornamental profile of USD965959S faces potential infringement exposure, regardless of brand name or internal cooling technology.
Should your cooling mask product be cleared against USD965959S?
Any business importing, manufacturing, or retailing gel ice hats, migraine caps, cooling masks, or thermal head wraps sold in the U.S. market should assess freedom-to-operate against USD965959S. The ordinary observer standard used in design patent infringement means that visual similarity — even absent intentional copying — can be sufficient to sustain an infringement claim. With the plaintiff retaining the right to refile, this is not a resolved risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD965959S against your product’s visual profile, identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and surface any pending continuation or related design applications in Yunshang’s portfolio. R&D and product teams can use Eureka to run design-around analysis before launching new cooling wearable SKUs into the U.S. market — reducing litigation exposure before it begins.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0965959S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Infringement Cases in Consumer Cooling Wearables
Explore comparable design patent infringement disputes involving cooling masks, ice hats, and thermal wearables filed in U.S. federal district courts.
What this case signals for the cooling wearables design patent landscape
Short-lived design patent suits in consumer goods can carry outsized commercial leverage. Here is what IP teams should take away.
Design patents are low-cost, high-leverage tools for market control
USD965959S is a design patent — protecting ornamental appearance, not technical function. Design patent suits are faster to file and harder to design around than utility patents. A 21-day filing-to-dismissal cycle in this case suggests the complaint itself may have achieved a commercial goal — a warning shot, a licensing conversation starter, or a marketplace enforcement action. IP teams in consumer goods should treat design patents as tactical instruments, not just defensive assets.
Without-prejudice dismissals leave the door open — monitor for refiling
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Yunshang can refile against R & Y Group or any other party selling products that read on USD965959S. Competitors and retailers in the cooling mask and ice hat category should actively monitor this patent for new enforcement actions. A refiling — especially in a different venue or against a broader defendant pool — would signal an escalated enforcement strategy.
Yunshang v R — key questions answered
USD965959S is a U.S. design patent (application no. 29/747197) held by Yunshang Electronics protecting the ornamental appearance of a cooling mask or ice hat. In this case, Yunshang asserted the patent against six accused products sold by R & Y Group, including the FOMI Gel Ice Hat and Migraine Ice Hat. The case was dismissed before any merits ruling on the patent’s scope or validity.
Yunshang filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), and the court granted it without prejudice on November 18, 2024. The public record does not reveal the commercial reason. A without-prejudice dismissal preserves Yunshang’s right to refile the same claims, and no settlement or licensing terms are disclosed in the docket.
Yes. Because the dismissal was explicitly without prejudice, Yunshang retains the full right to refile infringement claims based on USD965959S against R & Y Group or other defendants. A second voluntary dismissal without prejudice would, however, operate as a dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), known as the ‘two-dismissal rule.’
The complaint named six accused products: the Aroma Season Cooling Mask (Aroma cooling cap), FOMI Gel Ice Hat, Migraine Ice Hat, Olga heat and cold applicator, Qnoon, and Yanming Ice Hat. All are cooling or thermal wearable products designed for head or migraine relief, which aligns with the ornamental design protected by the asserted design patent.
Under Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa (Fed. Cir. 2008), design patent infringement is assessed through the eyes of an ‘ordinary observer’ — a typical purchaser who might mistake the accused product for the patented design. Functional differences in cooling technology are irrelevant; only visual similarity matters. Sellers of cooling masks with similar aesthetic profiles to USD965959S face infringement risk regardless of internal mechanism differences.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.