IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Dissolution of preliminary injunction in foldable-fan design patent dispute affirmed on appeal, (Jul 24, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

A later-issued design patent covering the accused products undermined the patent owner's likelihood of success on infringement, making preliminary injunctive relief unwarranted.

In a non-precedential disposition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dissolution of a preliminary injunction against one online seller and the denial of preliminary injunctive relief against several newly added defendants in a design patent infringement suit involving foldable fans. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a later-issued design patent covering the accused products weakened the patent owner's likelihood of success on its infringement claims. It also rejected the patent owner's argument that collateral estoppel barred the district court from reconsidering the relevance of the later-issued patent during the ongoing litigation (Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Entities and Individuals Identified In Annex A, No. 25-1617 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 22, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff-appellant, Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd., manufactures foldable fans. The defendants are numerous online sellers accused of marketing allegedly infringing products through e-commerce platforms, including Amazon and Temu. Shenzhen filed the action in the Northern District of Illinois as a Schedule A case, initially obtaining an ex parte temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction against certain defendants. Several defendants, including Zhouty, appeared to contest the requested relief.

The dispute involved U.S. Design Patent No. D886,982 (the ’982 patent), covering the ornamental design of a foldable fan. Shenzhen alleged that the defendants' foldable fans copied the patented design. During the litigation, however, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S. Design Patent No. D1,046,104 (the ’104 patent) to a third party for another foldable-fan design, listing the ’982 patent as prior art. Defendants asserted that their accused products embodied the later-issued ’104 patent.

After the ’104 patent issued, Zhouty sought reconsideration of the preliminary injunction, arguing that the issuance of a later design patent covering its products suggested that the accused design was materially different from Shenzhen's patented design. Shenzhen subsequently added five new defendants, including the owner of the '104 patent, and sought another preliminary injunction. The district court ultimately dissolved the existing injunction against Zhouty and denied injunctive relief against the newly added defendants, finding that the later-issued patent undermined Shenzhen's likelihood of success on the merits. Shenzhen appealed.

Collateral estoppel. Shenzhen first argued that the district court was barred by collateral estoppel from reconsidering arguments concerning the significance of the '104 patent because it had previously rejected similar arguments when denying Zhouty's motion for reconsideration.

The Federal Circuit disagreed. Applying Seventh Circuit law, it explained that collateral estoppel precludes relitigation only between separate proceedings and has no application within the same ongoing lawsuit. Citing Williams v. Commissioner, 1 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 1993), and In re Hovis, 356 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2004), the court held that a trial court remains free to revisit earlier non-final rulings during a continuing case. Accordingly, the district court was not precluded from reassessing the significance of the '104 patent when considering Shenzhen's renewed request for preliminary injunctive relief.

Preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit also upheld the district court's conclusion that Shenzhen failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. Shenzhen argued that the district court improperly conflated infringement with patentability by effectively requiring it to prove that the later-issued ’104 patent was invalid before it could establish infringement of the ’982 patent. The Federal Circuit rejected that characterization.

The court acknowledged that infringement and obviousness involve different legal standards. However, it emphasized that, in design patent law, the test for anticipation mirrors the test for infringement. Relying on International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the court explained that if two designs are substantially the same for purposes of infringement, the later design would likewise be anticipated. Because the '104 patent issued over the ’982 patent, it enjoyed a statutory presumption of validity, suggesting that the Patent Office had found a patentable distinction between the two designs.

Given the defendants' representation that their accused products embodied the ’104 patent, the district court acted within its discretion in treating the later-issued patent as evidence weighing against Shenzhen's likelihood of ultimately proving infringement. The Federal Circuit stressed that this conclusion was limited to the preliminary injunction stage and did not foreclose Shenzhen from establishing infringement at trial. Finding no abuse of discretion, it affirmed both the dissolution of the injunction against Zhouty and the denial of preliminary injunctive relief against the newly added defendants.

Dissent. Circuit Judge Kara F. Stoll dissented in part, agreeing with the majority on collateral estoppel but disagreeing with its affirmance of the preliminary injunction ruling. In her view, the district court failed to apply the Federal Circuit's required three-way design patent analysis comparing the patented design, the accused product, and the prior art under the ordinary observer test. Relying instead on the existence of the later-issued ’104 patent amounted to an impermissible shortcut. She would have vacated the injunction ruling and remanded for application of the proper framework set out in ABC Corp. I v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", 52 F.4th 934 (Fed. Cir. 2022).

The Case is No. 25-1617.

Judge: Hughes, T.

Attorneys: Ge Lei (Getech Law LLC) for Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.

Companies: Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews