Zhanhongtu v. Uproot Lint LLC: Pet Hair Rake Design Patent Suit Dismissed
Zhanhongtu E-Commerce Co., Ltd. filed suit against Uproot Lint LLC in Florida’s Southern District, asserting two design patents covering pet hair removal rakes. The case closed just 84 days after filing when Zhanhongtu voluntarily dismissed without prejudice — leaving the door open for future action.
Design patent dispute over pet hair rakes ends before substantive review
On December 16, 2024, Zhanhongtu E-Commerce Co., Ltd. filed an infringement action against Uproot Lint LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida before Judge David S. Leibowitz. The complaint asserted two design patents — USD1009393S and USD1041113S, filed under application numbers US29/892269 and US29/919741 respectively — both directed to the ornamental design of pet hair removal rakes.
The case closed on March 10, 2025, when Zhanhongtu filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court ordered dismissal, terminated all pending deadlines, and denied any pending motions as moot. Each party was directed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No merits ruling was issued at any stage of the proceedings.
The 84-day lifecycle is consistent with cases resolved before the defendant files an answer or substantive motions — Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits dismissal as of right before such filings. The absence of defendant representation on record further suggests Uproot Lint may not have formally appeared. What drove Zhanhongtu’s decision to withdraw — whether settlement discussions, claim reassessment, or litigation strategy — is not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 84 days
84 days — well below the median patent case duration, suggesting early resolution before substantive litigation
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court approval needed
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court’s order here confirms this procedural posture. No merits were litigated, and the dismissal carries no preclusive effect on the substance of the patent claims.
No merits adjudicationDismissal without prejudice: Zhanhongtu retains the right to refile
A dismissal without prejudice means the action is terminated but the plaintiff is not barred from bringing the same claims again in a future suit. The court’s order explicitly states ‘dismissed without prejudice.’ This is distinct from a dismissal with prejudice, which would extinguish the claims permanently. The public record does not reveal whether a private settlement or licensing agreement accompanied this exit.
Refiling remains possibleUproot Lint escapes judgment — but design patent risk persists
Uproot Lint LLC obtains a clean exit from this specific proceeding with no liability finding. Each party bears its own costs, so no fee award was entered against either side. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, Zhanhongtu could reassert USD1009393S and USD1041113S in a future action. Uproot Lint’s product line remains exposed to re-litigation if the underlying design patent dispute is unresolved.
No liability — risk remainsPet hair removal market: design patent enforcement signals ongoing risk
Design patents on consumer pet accessories — particularly rake-style hair removal tools — are an active enforcement area as e-commerce sellers seek to protect product aesthetics against copycat listings. This case suggests Zhanhongtu is willing to file suit to defend its registered designs. Competitors and Amazon/marketplace sellers in the pet grooming tool category should treat this dismissal as a pause, not a permanent resolution.
Sector enforcement trendFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Zhanhongtu E-Commerce Co., Ltd. | Company | E-commerce company — holder of design patents USD1009393S and USD1041113SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Uproot Lint LLC | Company | Uproot Lint LLC — maker or seller of pet hair removal rake productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Jonathan Palmer | Attorney | Counsel for Zhanhongtu E-Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Palmer Law Group PA | Law Firm | Representing Zhanhongtu E-Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David S. Leibowitz | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the precise language of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming this was a plaintiff-initiated dismissal as of right rather than a court-ordered termination on the merits. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ designation preserves Zhanhongtu’s ability to reassert these design patent claims. The mootness of pending motions and termination of deadlines confirms no substantive proceedings had progressed — the record reflects a case ended at its earliest procedural stage.
USD1009393S & USD1041113S — Pet Hair Removal Rake Ornamental Designs
USD1009393S (application US29/892269) and USD1041113S (application US29/919741) are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of pet hair removal rakes. Design patents cover how a product looks, not how it functions — infringement is assessed by whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product substantially similar in overall visual impression. The sequential application numbers suggest USD1041113S may be a continuation or related filing, indicating Zhanhongtu sought layered design coverage over the same product family.
In the pet accessories e-commerce market, design patents have become a primary enforcement tool for sellers seeking to distinguish their product aesthetics from competing listings on platforms such as Amazon. A registered design patent provides a strong basis for takedown requests and litigation against substantially similar competing products. With two design patents covering what appears to be the same product category, Zhanhongtu’s portfolio suggests a deliberate strategy to create overlapping design protection that is difficult for competitors to design around.
Should your pet grooming product clear USD1009393S and USD1041113S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling pet hair removal rakes — or visually similar lint and fur removal tools — should evaluate freedom-to-operate against both USD1009393S and USD1041113S. E-commerce sellers, private-label brands, and marketplace resellers are all potential enforcement targets. The voluntary dismissal here does not extinguish these patents or signal they are unenforceable — Zhanhongtu retains both registrations and the right to refile.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to run a visual and claim-level comparison of their pet hair removal or grooming tool designs against the ornamental scope of these two design patents. Eureka surfaces related design patent families, prosecution history, and prior art in a single workflow — giving IP counsel a documented FTO basis before product launch or marketplace listing.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1009393S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in pet accessories and e-commerce
Explore related design patent enforcement actions involving pet grooming tools and consumer accessories filed in Florida and other e-commerce IP hotspot courts.
What this case signals for the pet accessory design patent landscape
A quick voluntary dismissal in a design patent case is rarely the end of the story — here is what IP teams should watch.
Rule 41 exits before answer filing are common e-commerce IP tactics
Filing and then voluntarily dismissing without prejudice is a pattern seen in e-commerce design patent disputes. It can reflect settlement reached outside court, a decision to refile in a more favorable venue, or a strategic signal to the defendant. IP teams monitoring competitors in the pet accessories space should not interpret this dismissal as the dispute being resolved.
Each party bears own costs — no deterrent fee award entered
The court’s cost order — each side pays its own fees — is the default outcome of a Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal. No fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was triggered, meaning Uproot Lint cannot recover litigation costs. For defendants in similar positions, this underscores the expense of defending even short-lived design patent actions.
Zhanhongtu v Uproot — key questions answered
Zhanhongtu E-Commerce Co., Ltd. filed a design patent infringement action against Uproot Lint LLC on December 16, 2024 in the Southern District of Florida, asserting USD1009393S and USD1041113S over pet hair removal rakes. On March 10, 2025, Zhanhongtu voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), 84 days after filing. No merits ruling was issued and each party bears its own costs.
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish Zhanhongtu’s patent rights or bar future litigation. The design patents USD1009393S and USD1041113S remain valid and enforceable. Zhanhongtu retains the right to file a new infringement action against Uproot Lint LLC or any other party based on the same patents. The dismissal only ends this specific case proceeding.
Both USD1009393S (filed as US29/892269) and USD1041113S (filed as US29/919741) are U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of pet hair removal rakes. Design patents protect visual aesthetics rather than functional features — competitors with products that an ordinary observer might confuse with the patented design could face infringement exposure.
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff can dismiss before the defendant answers or files a summary judgment motion. Common reasons include: a private settlement or licensing agreement reached out of court; a reassessment of claim strength; a decision to refile in a different venue; or pressure from business considerations. The public record in this case does not disclose the specific reason for Zhanhongtu’s withdrawal.
Yes. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Zhanhongtu could refile claims based on USD1009393S and USD1041113S at any time within the applicable statute of limitations. No court found that Uproot Lint did not infringe, nor were the patents found invalid. Uproot Lint should consider conducting an FTO analysis and monitoring Zhanhongtu’s patent portfolio for any new filings or continuations.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.