Zemiao Chen v. Schedule A Defendants: Bag Design Patent Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
Plaintiff Zemiao Chen asserted U.S. Design Patent USD1019124S — covering a bag design — against more than 150 online marketplace sellers in the Southern District of Florida. After 386 days of litigation, Chen voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice, leaving the door open for future enforcement action.
Mass online-seller design patent action ends in voluntary exit
On May 21, 2024, Zemiao Chen filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 0:24-cv-60863) against an unusually large group of defendants — styled as ‘The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — and specifically naming over 150 individual online sellers. The action alleged infringement of U.S. Design Patent USD1019124S (Application No. 29/798,341), which protects the ornamental design of a bag, a filing pattern common in e-commerce enforcement campaigns targeting marketplace sellers.
On June 11, 2025, Judge Raag Singhal entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice following Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (DE [145]). All pending motions were denied as moot and all hearings and deadlines were terminated. A dismissal without prejudice means the underlying claims were not adjudicated on the merits, and the plaintiff retains the legal right to refile the same or substantially similar claims against any or all of the named defendants, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
At 386 days, the case ran longer than many Schedule A design patent actions that resolve through early injunctions or quick settlements, suggesting this matter encountered procedural complexity — possibly related to service of process on numerous foreign sellers, enforcement of any preliminary injunctions, or failed settlement negotiations. The public record does not disclose whether any defendants settled privately before the voluntary dismissal, nor does it reveal the financial terms of any such resolutions. The without-prejudice posture is consistent with a plaintiff preserving optionality rather than conceding defeat.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 386 days
386 days — above the median for Schedule A e-commerce design patent cases that resolve pre-trial
Voluntarily dismissed: what a without-prejudice exit means for both sides
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a) terminates the current proceeding without any ruling on the merits. The court does not find for or against either party. Crucially, the plaintiff is not barred from filing a new action asserting the same patent claims against the same or different defendants. The case is closed administratively, but the legal dispute is not resolved.
No merits adjudicationThis dismissal was explicitly without prejudice
The court order and plaintiff’s notice both specify ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Chen retains the right to refile. This contrasts with a dismissal with prejudice, which would extinguish the claims permanently. The distinction is commercially significant: defendants cannot treat this closure as a final resolution of their exposure to this design patent. Any seller still listing the accused bag design should treat litigation risk as ongoing.
Refile risk remainsSellers face unresolved exposure despite case closure
None of the 150+ named defendants received a merits ruling in their favour. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, each seller remains potentially subject to future suit on the same design patent. Defendants who did not settle privately should assess whether they continue to sell the accused product. Those who settled may have reached confidential agreements not reflected in the public docket.
No declaratory relief obtainedSchedule A enforcement remains a live risk for online marketplace sellers
This case is consistent with a broader enforcement strategy in which design patent holders file against large cohorts of marketplace sellers, obtain early injunctive relief or settlements, then exit via voluntary dismissal. The without-prejudice posture signals that USD1019124S remains an active enforcement asset. Competing sellers in the bag accessories space on platforms such as Amazon should factor continued litigation risk into their product and listing strategies.
Active enforcement assetFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Zemiao Chen | Individual | Design patent holder asserting ornamental bag design rights — holder of USD1019124SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | 150+ individual and unincorporated online marketplace sellers, primarily appearing to operate on platforms such as AmazonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Chamthou | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Emily Wan | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Fanouerr | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | NSSTAR | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | NUEDOT | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | orandream | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Organizers Shop | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others too numerous to list: DAIKOYE, yyreach, T-Antrix, Flyusa, GCSM-US, SiuMask, Rainmae, Xianewqia, Sheusualgirl, codree, faceixiaodian, Flimikun, Shasha Music, Fey’s Gift, Conbooes, shenghuikeji, UTTPLL, Fumwase, SHINDEL, vgsdfgfgfgrtuyj90, Aetygh, xing meng ke ji, YVVZHOU PANN, Bustling Xin, Homoney, ASON-US, Shcsdr, CandyFouse-Noyo, CANIPHA, Hiparty Mall, TAIWANBED, JingDan, XiaoTu, xuanheng, HAMATAPA, Penta angel, senlie-us, Zhaoyao Mall, Malixiao88, Ahuang-store, U-Zimikee Direct, Seabeach Store, LyNeng, QIMIAO SHOP, QidouTrading, xindibusiness, Nanning Ouben, Kablekt, Auony US, tankongxi, WWAzuo, avla, YEGEER, UYEAJNP, Aircord, ILMLYTAL, F-color, Tininmug, HFXXAD, Cieovo, Haankong, Leasndao, RojeamUS, EUARD, AXZTYYLA, BingChengUK, Daosenwang, Yiwu Hande E-commerce Co., Ltd, DEHUI US, Heather Healy1, DODOYU, Cadeya, Woowan Auce, OKGD, Mackerel Bead, YuCang Direct Store, MUYIZI Direct, KINBOM store, qingyushe, Adorila, Nynicorny, Shenzhenshi zhuochengjiajuyouxiangongsi, FEISHUODIRECT, Himatan, VOROLO-US, AMOR PRESENT, whasme, P&C-Direct, ConvienientLife, FuturePlusX, BABORUI, BMWH, Senlin Store, Y-SHI, Youchencei, Darling-E, SBKJ, MCPINKY, Megabar, Toosunny, Wayuen, BSRESIN, HaimiLiya Direct, Hovsiner, Zqpmzg, Gulissa, PEIPEITOYS, YotoUS, flyzone, STALIBIU, MUYIZI, IYWISH, Letesi, HiFiveUS Store, Derayee, Hokoad US, QUHUAMAO, DINJIN STORE, HongFfengbusiness, The taste of cooking, Duoyaguoo, Toidgy, Dayilier, Runyao, Teemico US, MiuoZI, LAVENSA, FUTUREPLUX, Kiddisie, BeiquduoTechnology, Lanathel, The Life Company, staring, Yragrant, guangzhoujurongmaoyiyouxiangongsi, jorunhe, Qizeeey, Abnaok, xrretaop, Strassiwo, Xianyang Instrument, Liannail, HoolyMoon, JAYOBE(arrive within a week), Vodolo, Amidaky, S&S Trading LLC, Honkenda, Feperig, menolanaUS, Reemtoo, HUGCATY-US, muzhizhidianzi, EUBUY, Mototo US, Small Boy Technology, cleanla | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | YINUOTIYU | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Zeonhra | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Jonathan Palmer | Attorney | Counsel for Zemiao ChenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Palmer Law Group PA | Law Firm | Representing Zemiao ChenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Raag Singhal | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal notice verbatim, reflecting a routine Rule 41(a) administrative closure rather than a contested judicial determination. The phrase ‘DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE’ carries precise legal weight: no claim was adjudicated, no liability found, and no injunction made permanent. The denial of all pending motions as moot confirms the court made no substantive rulings that could be relied upon by either party in future proceedings. This posture leaves USD1019124S legally intact and judicially untested.
USD1019124S — Ornamental Bag Design (App. No. 29/798,341)
U.S. Design Patent USD1019124S, filed under application number 29/798,341, protects the ornamental appearance — not functional features — of a bag. Design patents in the U.S. cover the visual and aesthetic characteristics of an article of manufacture. Protection is limited to the specific design as shown in the patent drawings; functional elements are excluded. Design patents typically grant for 15 years from grant date and are asserted by comparing the claimed design to accused products under the ‘ordinary observer’ test.
In the online marketplace context, design patents covering consumer accessories such as bags are increasingly used in coordinated enforcement campaigns against third-party sellers on platforms like Amazon, Temu, and Shein. USD1019124S, having never been subjected to validity review in this proceeding, represents an unresolved risk for any seller whose bag product shares visual similarity to the patented design. Competitors and marketplace sellers in the bag and accessories category should treat this patent as an active enforcement asset pending any validity challenge.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1019124S?
Any business manufacturing, importing, or selling bags — particularly through online marketplaces — that share visual characteristics with the design claimed in USD1019124S should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis. The voluntary dismissal in this case did not invalidate the patent or establish non-infringement. With refile risk open and the patent legally intact, product teams launching new bag SKUs or expanding existing lines on Amazon or similar platforms face meaningful exposure without a clearance opinion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD1019124S against your product designs, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and flag design-around opportunities. Eureka’s landscape analysis can also surface other design patents held by the same inventor or enforcement network, helping R&D and IP teams anticipate the full scope of potential exposure — not just the single patent asserted in this action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1019124S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A Design Patent Cases in S.D. Florida
Explore related design patent infringement actions filed in the Southern District of Florida targeting online marketplace sellers of consumer accessories and bags.
What this case signals for the online marketplace design patent IP landscape
Schedule A design patent actions in S.D. Florida represent a distinct enforcement model. This case illustrates key risk patterns for sellers and competitors.
Without-prejudice exit preserves the patent holder’s enforcement leverage
Chen’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice is tactically neutral-to-positive for the plaintiff. It preserves USD1019124S as an enforcement tool, avoids any adverse merits ruling, and allows selective re-filing against specific defendants — particularly useful if certain sellers resumed sales after any preliminary injunction lapsed.
150+ defendant cases signal serial enforcement, not one-off disputes
The Schedule A filing format — sweeping in over 150 named sellers — is a hallmark of coordinated e-commerce IP enforcement. Online retailers and marketplace sellers in the bag and accessories category should proactively monitor design patents filed by enforcement-focused individual plaintiffs in the Southern District of Florida.
Chen v Individuals — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice. On June 11, 2025, Judge Raag Singhal entered an order following Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (DE [145]) explicitly stating the cause ‘stands DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.’ This means the plaintiff retains the right to refile claims against any of the named defendants.
The plaintiff asserted U.S. Design Patent USD1019124S, filed under application number 29/798,341. This is a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a bag. Design patents cover the visual characteristics of a product, not its functional features, and are enforced under the ‘ordinary observer’ test.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice means no court ruled on the merits of the infringement claims. None of the 150+ defendants received a finding of non-infringement or invalidity. Each defendant remains potentially subject to a future lawsuit asserting the same patent. The case closure does not function as a legal shield against re-filing.
The complaint named defendants collectively as ‘The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,’ with over 150 specifically identified sellers named in the docket, including Chamthou, NSSTAR, NUEDOT, and many others — predominantly appearing to be online marketplace sellers. This Schedule A format is a common structure for e-commerce IP enforcement actions in S.D. Florida.
No. The case was dismissed voluntarily before any merits ruling. The validity and enforceability of USD1019124S were never adjudicated by the court. The patent remains legally valid and enforceable. Any party seeking to challenge the patent’s validity would need to initiate separate proceedings, such as an inter partes review petition at the USPTO.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.