In a case that underscores the economic realities of design patent enforcement, Guanyi Zhang filed suit against a group of e-commerce sellers in the Northern District of Illinois on May 9, 2024, asserting infringement of Design Patent USD985180S covering a table lamp. After just 89 days, the case closed on August 6, 2024, when plaintiff’s counsel voluntarily dismissed the last remaining defendant, FADLIGHT, upon discovering that the accused product (Amazon ASIN B0CHFJFSP6) had generated only $8,391.05 in sales — rendering further litigation economically unviable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

This case offers a instructive lens into the ‘Schedule A’ litigation model commonly used to pursue overseas e-commerce sellers for design patent and IP violations. For IP practitioners and in-house counsel, it highlights how damages discovery can fundamentally reshape litigation economics, and why early financial diligence on accused sellers is critical before committing to protracted enforcement campaigns targeting marketplace vendors.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

U.S. Design Patent USD985180S (application number US29/807061) protects the ornamental appearance of a table lamp — specifically its unique visual design elements such as shape, silhouette, and decorative styling. Design patents do not protect functional features but rather the distinctive look of a product, and infringement is assessed by whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented one. In practical terms, this patent prevents competitors from selling table lamps that look virtually identical to the protected design in the marketplace.

• • USD0985180S

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Counsel: Avek IP LLC (lead: Allen Justin Poplin)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

This case was filed in the Northern District of Illinois, a preferred venue for Schedule A patent and trademark enforcement actions due to its established familiarity with multi-defendant e-commerce infringement cases and its willingness to grant temporary restraining orders and asset freezes against overseas sellers. Filing at the district court level as a first-instance matter meant the plaintiff sought initial fact-finding, injunctive relief, and damages without any prior administrative proceedings at the PTAB or ITC.

The case resolved in just 89 days — an exceptionally short duration even by Schedule A litigation standards. Rather than proceeding to trial or settling on financial terms, the case ended via voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a self-effectuating mechanism requiring no court order. The trigger was discovery revealing FADLIGHT’s total sales of the accused product amounted to only $8,391.05, making further prosecution economically irrational. All pending motions were terminated as moot, all deadlines stricken, and the plaintiff moved separately for return of any bond posted during the preliminary injunction phase.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case was terminated by the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice of all claims against FADLIGHT, the last remaining defendant, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No damages were awarded, no injunction was entered, and no findings of infringement were made by the court. The dismissal without prejudice technically preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile claims against FADLIGHT in the future, though the economic justification for doing so remains questionable given the minimal sales figures uncovered.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The voluntary dismissal was driven by a straightforward economic calculation revealed through the discovery process

• Discovery confirmed that FADLIGHT sold only $8,391.05 worth of the accused product (ASIN B0CHFJFSP6), far below the threshold that would justify continued litigation costs in a district court infringement action.
• Plaintiff’s counsel cited economic non-viability as the explicit grounds for dismissal, demonstrating that even a facially valid design patent infringement claim can be abandoned when potential damages cannot justify attorney fees and court costs.
• The dismissal was filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which is self-effectuating before service of an answer or summary judgment motion, requiring no judicial approval and taking immediate effect upon filing.
• Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings terminated all pending motions (docket entries 31, 39, 42, 43) as moot upon the filing of the notice, and the plaintiff simultaneously moved for return of any bond that had been posted to secure preliminary injunctive relief.

Legal Significance

1. 1. This case illustrates a recurring challenge in Schedule A litigation: while multi-defendant complaints allow plaintiffs to cast a wide enforcement net, individual seller sales volumes may be insufficient to justify per-defendant litigation costs, requiring early financial due diligence to prioritize enforcement targets.
2. 2. The dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) leaves open the theoretical possibility of refiling, but given the minimal sales data now on record, any future action against FADLIGHT would face scrutiny regarding litigation purpose and economic proportionality.
3. 3. For design patent holders in the consumer goods and lighting space, this case reinforces that USPTO-registered design patents (including D-patents filed under the Hague Agreement or domestic continuations) provide enforceable rights on e-commerce platforms, but enforcement economics must be evaluated seller-by-seller rather than collectively.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys:

• In Schedule A cases, seek early financial discovery or platform sales data (via Amazon, eBay, or Shopify subpoenas) before incurring substantial litigation costs on defendants with potentially de minimis sales volumes.
• When filing multi-defendant Schedule A complaints, consider staggering dismissals strategically — settling higher-volume sellers first and using proceeds to fund continued pursuit of others, rather than allowing all defendants to reach the economic threshold analysis simultaneously.
• Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a useful exit ramp when discovery reveals unfavorable economics, but counsel should simultaneously move for bond return and document the sales figures for any potential future refiling or licensing discussions.
• Design patent claims (as opposed to utility patents) in the decorative lighting category face a low obviousness bar for obtaining the patent but require careful claim scope analysis to ensure the ornamental design is sufficiently distinct to survive an accused infringer’s invalidity challenge if the case proceeds to merits.

For IP Professionals:

• Companies operating in the e-commerce lighting and home décor space should monitor Schedule A filings in the Northern District of Illinois, as this venue is frequently used for design patent enforcement sweeps that can ensnare marketplace sellers with even modest product lines.
• Before listing decorative lighting products on major e-commerce platforms, in-house IP teams should conduct design patent clearance searches covering USD-series patents in the relevant product category to avoid being caught in a Schedule A enforcement action where even a small sales volume can trigger a lawsuit.

For R&D Teams:

• Product designers in the table lamp and decorative lighting category should document the design evolution process and reference prior art to establish independent creation, which strengthens defense positions if named in a design patent infringement suit based on ornamental similarity.
• When sourcing private-label consumer goods from manufacturers (particularly in Guangdong Province, China), require IP indemnification warranties and conduct freedom-to-operate reviews of the product’s ornamental design before listing on Amazon or similar platforms, as design patents like USD985180S are actively enforced through Schedule A actions.