Zheng v. Schedule A Defendants: Snack Box Design Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Zhencai Zheng filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois asserting USD1054809S — a snack box design — against a Schedule A roster of e-commerce defendants. The case closed in 153 days when Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. dismissed it with prejudice for failure to prosecute, entering judgment in favor of all defendants with no costs awarded.
Design patent suit ends in Rule 41(b) dismissal before reaching the merits
On April 16, 2025, Zhencai Zheng filed a design patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:25-cv-04146), asserting U.S. Design Patent USD1054809S — covering a snack box ornamental design — against an unnamed roster of online sellers identified collectively as Schedule A defendants. The plaintiff was represented by Mingzi Ouyang of Valley & Summit Law, a firm that frequently handles Schedule A e-commerce enforcement campaigns.
The case closed on September 16, 2025, when Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. dismissed it with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), which authorises involuntary dismissal where a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court orders. The court entered judgment on the merits in favour of the defendants and specifically ordered that defendants shall not recover costs from the plaintiff — an unusual but not unprecedented exercise of judicial discretion in Schedule A matters.
The 153-day duration suggests the case stalled relatively early in the litigation lifecycle, potentially before service was fully effected or before the plaintiff met procedural deadlines set by the court. The public record does not disclose the specific failure — whether missed filing deadlines, non-response to court orders, or inability to identify and serve defendants — but the with-prejudice designation bars Zheng from re-filing the same claims in federal court. What remains unknown is whether any settlement or licensing activity occurred off-record prior to dismissal.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Defendant in 153 days
153-day lifespan — closed well before typical N.D. Ill. patent trial schedule
Rule 41(b) dismissal with prejudice: what the judgment means for both sides
Rule 41(b): dismissal for failure to prosecute
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) empowers a court to dismiss an action involuntarily when the plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules and orders. Unlike a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a), the court initiates this dismissal. Crucially, such a dismissal operates as a judgment on the merits unless the court states otherwise — here, the court did not carve out an exception, making the dismissal with prejudice.
Involuntary dismissal on the meritsWith prejudice means Zheng cannot refile these claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits. Zhencai Zheng is barred from re-asserting the same infringement claims based on USD1054809S against these defendants in federal court. The patent itself remains in force — it has not been invalidated — but the practical enforcement pathway against this defendant group is now closed. Any future action would need to rely on new facts or new defendants.
Re-filing barred; patent intactJudgment entered for defendants — no cost recovery awarded
The Schedule A defendants received a judgment on the merits in their favour without having to mount a substantive defence to the design patent claims. Notably, the court declined to award costs to defendants despite the favourable judgment — suggesting the court exercised discretion to avoid burdening an individual plaintiff. Defendants retain no ongoing liability on these specific claims and face no injunction risk from this action.
Defendants prevail; no costs awardedSchedule A enforcement failures carry lasting consequences
Schedule A litigation — targeting multiple anonymous e-commerce sellers simultaneously — demands rigorous case management. A Rule 41(b) dismissal with prejudice signals that the plaintiff lost the ability to pursue these specific infringing parties permanently. For other design patent holders running Schedule A campaigns, this outcome underscores the risk of procedural attrition: failing to meet court deadlines can extinguish otherwise valid IP rights against a specific defendant cohort.
Procedural risk in e-commerce IP enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Zhencai Zheng | Individual | Individual design patent holder — asserting USD1054809S covering a snack box designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Corporations, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Unnamed e-commerce sellers identified on Schedule A — a common multi-defendant enforcement structureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mingzi Ouyang | Attorney | Counsel for Zhencai ZhengSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Valley & Summit Law | Law Firm | Representing Zhencai ZhengSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict language specifies dismissal ‘with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)’ and explicitly enters judgment ‘on the merits’ for defendants. This phrasing is legally significant: it invokes res judicata, barring the plaintiff from re-litigating the same claims against these defendants. The no-costs order is a notable discretionary element — courts may decline to award costs even to prevailing parties, and its inclusion here likely reflects the individual plaintiff’s circumstances rather than a finding of bad faith by either side.
USD1054809S — ornamental design for a snack box
USD1054809S is a U.S. design patent — identified by application number US29/960352 — protecting the ornamental appearance of a snack box. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture. Unlike utility patents, design patents have a 15-year term from grant and are assessed for infringement under the ‘ordinary observer’ test established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa (Fed. Cir. 2008), asking whether an ordinary observer would be deceived into thinking the accused design is the same as the patented design.
In the e-commerce context, snack box and food packaging designs are frequently copied by overseas sellers on platforms such as Amazon, Temu, and AliExpress. A design patent like USD1054809S can be a cost-effective tool to obtain platform takedowns and injunctive relief in Schedule A actions — provided the litigation is actively managed. The failure to prosecute here leaves the commercial value of this design patent unrealised against this particular group of alleged infringers, though the patent’s underlying enforceability against other parties remains unaffected.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1054809S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling snack boxes — particularly those with ornamental packaging designs distributed through U.S. e-commerce channels — should assess their exposure to USD1054809S. Although this specific enforcement action was dismissed, the patent remains in force and the holder could pursue new actions against different sellers. The ‘ordinary observer’ standard for design patent infringement is relatively low, meaning even superficially similar snack box packaging could attract a claim.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD1054809S against your product design, surface prior art that could support a validity challenge, and identify any related design patent filings by the same applicant that might indicate a broader enforcement portfolio. For product teams launching snack or food packaging in the U.S. market, a targeted design patent FTO search takes hours — not weeks — and can prevent costly enforcement exposure before products ship.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1054809S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable ornamental design patent infringement actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois targeting Schedule A e-commerce defendants.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement in e-commerce markets
Schedule A campaigns are high-volume but procedurally demanding. This dismissal highlights where they break down.
Procedural discipline is as critical as IP validity in Schedule A cases
Even a valid design patent can fail to generate enforcement outcomes if the plaintiff’s litigation team cannot maintain compliance with court orders and deadlines. The Rule 41(b) dismissal here suggests the case collapsed on process, not substance — a preventable outcome that IP enforcement teams should treat as a case study in operational risk.
With-prejudice dismissals permanently close enforcement windows against specific defendants
Unlike voluntary dismissals without prejudice, a Rule 41(b) with-prejudice outcome forecloses re-litigation. Design patent holders running multi-defendant campaigns should ensure their counsel has the bandwidth and systems to track each defendant thread — especially in large Schedule A dockets where individual defendants can fall through the cracks.
Zheng v Corporations — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. This means the plaintiff, Zhencai Zheng, failed to advance the litigation — whether by missing court deadlines or failing to comply with court orders. Judge Tharp entered judgment on the merits for the defendants, permanently barring Zheng from re-filing the same claims against these defendants.
USD1054809S is a U.S. design patent filed under application number US29/960352. It protects the ornamental appearance — not the functional features — of a snack box. Design patents in the U.S. have a 15-year term from grant and are enforced under the ‘ordinary observer’ test, which assesses whether an ordinary consumer would confuse the accused design with the patented design.
No. A Rule 41(b) dismissal with prejudice bars Zhencai Zheng from re-litigating against the specific defendants in this Schedule A action, but it does not affect the validity or enforceability of the underlying design patent USD1054809S. Zheng retains the right to assert the patent against different alleged infringers in new litigation.
Despite entering judgment in favour of the defendants, Judge Tharp ordered that defendants shall not recover costs from the plaintiff. Courts have discretion to deny costs to prevailing parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), and this outcome may reflect the court’s assessment of the individual plaintiff’s circumstances or the procedural — rather than substantive — nature of the dismissal.
A Schedule A action is a litigation strategy where a plaintiff sues a large group of unnamed defendants — typically online sellers — simultaneously, listing them on an attached schedule rather than naming each in the case caption. Common in design patent and trademark enforcement against e-commerce platforms, the structure allows rapid temporary restraining orders and platform-level account freezes, but requires active case management to maintain. Failure to prosecute, as occurred here, can result in dismissal with prejudice against the entire cohort.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.