Zhejiang Zhengte v. Shenzhen Lanbiaoyi: Louvered Pergola Patent Voluntarily Dismissed
Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd. filed suit against Shenzhen Lanbiaoyi Technology Co., Ltd. in the Central District of California, asserting US11624187B2 covering louvered pergola structures. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) after 269 days, before the defendant had answered or filed any motion.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissal in a louvered pergola patent dispute
On 28 October 2024, Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd., a Chinese manufacturer and holder of US11624187B2, filed an infringement action against Shenzhen Lanbiaoyi Technology Co., Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The asserted patent covers louvered pergola structures — outdoor shading and shelter products that have become a competitive battleground among Chinese and global manufacturers in recent years.
The case closed on 24 July 2025 via a voluntary dismissal filed by the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The dismissal was filed at a stage when the defendant had neither answered the complaint nor filed any motion, satisfying the procedural prerequisites for a unilateral voluntary dismissal. The public record does not expressly specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The 269-day duration — from filing to voluntary dismissal before any substantive defendant response — suggests the case resolved or was abandoned at an early stage, possibly reflecting settlement discussions, a licensing arrangement, or a strategic reassessment by the plaintiff. Without a formal settlement agreement or court order on record, the precise commercial terms, if any, remain unknown from publicly available documents.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 269 days
269 days — closed before answer or any defendant motion filed
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to dismiss without court order
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Shenzhen Lanbiaoyi had not answered or filed any motion, Zhejiang Zhengte was entitled to dismiss unilaterally. No judicial approval was required.
Pre-answer unilateral dismissalWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is without prejudice by default unless the notice itself states otherwise, or unless the plaintiff has previously dismissed the same claim. The Basis of Termination recorded here is ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without further qualification. The public docket does not confirm whether the plaintiff’s notice explicitly stated ‘without prejudice’ or imposed any other condition. Practitioners should review the underlying notice directly before drawing conclusions about re-filing rights.
Prejudice terms unconfirmedZhejiang Zhengte exits early — future enforcement options depend on prejudice terms
By dismissing before any substantive engagement, Zhejiang Zhengte avoided the cost and risk of contested litigation. If the dismissal is without prejudice (the Rule 41 default), the plaintiff retains the right to refile the same infringement claim against Shenzhen Lanbiaoyi, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. This preserves US11624187B2 as an active enforcement asset.
Enforcement right potentially preservedShenzhen Lanbiaoyi avoids a merits ruling — but patent risk remains
The defendant escaped this action without any judgment on infringement or validity. However, a voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not neutralise the asserted patent. Shenzhen Lanbiaoyi and similarly positioned louvered pergola manufacturers should treat US11624187B2 as a live enforcement risk. The absence of a merits ruling means no invalidity finding protects the market from future assertion.
No invalidity finding; patent remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd. | Company | Outdoor structures manufacturer — holder of US11624187B2 (louvered pergola)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Shenzhen Lanbiaoyi Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Shenzhen-based consumer technology and outdoor products companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph K. Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathaniel L. Dilger | Attorney | Counsel for Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter R. Afrasiabi | Attorney | Counsel for Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Taylor C. Foss | Attorney | Counsel for Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | One LLP | Law Firm | Representing Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Arthur J Bobel | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Lanbiaoyi Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Leydig, Voit and Mayer, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Lanbiaoyi Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming that the plaintiff exercised a unilateral procedural right available only when the opposing party has not yet answered or moved for summary judgment. The explicit recitation that Aukey Trading — referenced in the verdict text — had neither answered nor filed any motion satisfies that threshold. No substantive findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope were made, meaning neither party received a merits adjudication. The patent’s enforceability is unaffected by this termination.
US11624187B2 — Louvered Pergola Structural System
US11624187B2, filed under application number US17/848318, protects a louvered pergola structure — an outdoor architectural product featuring adjustable louver blades that allow users to control light, ventilation, and weather protection. The patent sits within the broader category of outdoor shelter and shading systems, a sector that has seen significant product proliferation and parallel IP activity driven by Chinese manufacturers entering the US market.
For competitors in the louvered pergola and adjustable outdoor shelter category, US11624187B2 represents a credible enforcement asset held by a Chinese manufacturer with demonstrated willingness to litigate in US federal court. The patent’s existence in an active enforcement posture — and the absence of any invalidity ruling from this case — means the risk profile for downstream distributors, importers, and retailers of competing pergola products remains elevated.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11624187B2?
Any company importing, distributing, or retailing louvered pergola structures in the United States should evaluate their exposure to US11624187B2. The patent survived this litigation cycle without any invalidity challenge reaching a hearing, leaving its claims fully intact. Given that the plaintiff has shown a willingness to file in the Central District of California — a venue with significant volume of IP cases involving Chinese manufacturers — the risk of a follow-on action against other market participants is real.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to run a structured freedom-to-operate analysis against US11624187B2 and related patents in the louvered pergola space. Eureka maps claim scope against your product specifications, identifies design-around opportunities, and surfaces the full prosecution history to help counsel assess validity risk — all without manual prior art searching from scratch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11624187B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar louvered pergola and outdoor structures patent cases
Cases involving outdoor structure patents asserted in California federal courts by Chinese manufacturers — including related louvered pergola and adjustable shelter disputes.
What this case signals for the outdoor structures IP landscape
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal in a louvered pergola case rarely ends the story — it typically signals a negotiated pause or strategic reset.
US11624187B2 remains a live enforcement risk for pergola manufacturers
The case closed without any ruling on infringement or validity. Unless Zhejiang Zhengte granted a formal licence or covenant not to sue — neither of which appears in the public record — US11624187B2 is fully available for re-assertion. Companies selling louvered pergolas in the US market should treat this patent as an active commercial risk.
Pre-answer dismissals in Chinese-plaintiff US cases often signal private resolution
When a Chinese IP holder voluntarily dismisses a US infringement action before the defendant has even answered, it is frequently consistent with a private licensing or commercial settlement reached outside court. The 269-day window provided ample time for negotiations. IP teams monitoring this space should note that the absence of a public judgment does not mean the dispute was resolved on the merits.
Zhejiang v Shenzhen — key questions answered
Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Shenzhen Lanbiaoyi Technology Co., Ltd. in the Central District of California on 28 October 2024, asserting US11624187B2 covering louvered pergola structures. The case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on 24 July 2025, before the defendant had answered or filed any motion.
A voluntary dismissal without a merits ruling leaves the patent’s claims fully intact. No finding of invalidity or non-infringement was made. US11624187B2 remains an active, enforceable patent that Zhejiang Zhengte could assert again against Shenzhen Lanbiaoyi or other parties, subject to applicable limitations periods and the terms of any private agreement reached between the parties.
The Basis of Termination is recorded as ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without specifying prejudice terms. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals are without prejudice by default unless the notice states otherwise. Practitioners should review the underlying notice on the court’s PACER docket to confirm the express terms before advising on re-filing rights.
US11624187B2, filed as US application 17/848318, is a US utility patent held by Zhejiang Zhengte Co., Ltd. It covers a louvered pergola structural system — an outdoor shelter product with adjustable louver blades for controlling light and weather protection. The patent was asserted in this infringement action but received no judicial claim construction or validity ruling.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a summary judgment motion. In patent cases, this mechanism is often used when parties reach a private resolution or the plaintiff reassesses its enforcement strategy. The default effect is dismissal without prejudice, preserving the right to refile.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.