Case Highlight | Schedule A Design Patent Suit: Seven Days from Engagement to the Plaintiff's Voluntary Dismissal

Following a Schedule A utility patent matter in the Northern District of Illinois earlier that month, in which dismissal was secured ten days after engagement, LawMay again obtained a resolution — this time in seven days — in a Schedule A design patent action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

On March 4, 2026, the Western District of Pennsylvania issued a TRO in a Schedule A design patent mass action. Dozens of cross-border e-commerce sellers offering a category of outdoor gardening tool accessories were named as defendants; Amazon accounts were frozen the same day and the products were delisted across the board. For sellers who rely solely on Amazon, rankings begin to fall and cash flow begins to break on the first day of a freeze.

On March 10, one of those sellers engaged LawMay P.C. The team analyzed the validity of the asserted design patent, conducted an infringement comparison, and within three days completed a draft Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order and in Opposition to a Preliminary Injunction.

On March 13, LawMay served the motion on plaintiff's counsel, confirmed the plaintiff's position as required under the court's rules, and advised that the motion would be filed if the plaintiff did not dismiss. On March 16, the plaintiff filed a dismissal. On March 20, the account was released and the products were restored.

The two matters followed the same pattern: the motion was completed, served on opposing counsel, and the plaintiff dismissed. Federal litigation in the United States imposes strict constraints on the accuracy of a party's representations and on procedural compliance. A response that is well supported on both the facts and the law requires a plaintiff and its counsel to reassess the cost of proceeding.

From engagement to dismissal, LawMay completed the matter in seven days, helping the client preserve its Amazon rankings, market position, and cash flow.

This case summary is provided for informational purposes only. Outcomes depend on the specific facts, evidence, applicable law, and the court's discretion in each matter. Past results do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes in future matters.