NeoBull Dynamics Gets a TRO Restraining Amazon Sales and Sale Proceeds in a Neck Pillow Design Patent Suit.

The complaint

The case is NeoBull Dynamics Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint, No. 1:26-cv-08457 (S.D.N.Y.), a one-count design-patent complaint with a jury demand filed September 28, 2026 (ECF No. 1). The complaint identifies NeoBull as the patent's assignee, with an address in Boulder, Colorado. It says a public version of Schedule A identifying it as filed under seal accompanies the public complaint, and that the unredacted complaint and Schedule A were filed under seal under a court order allowing a redacted public filing.

The design patent

U.S. Design Patent D1,097,646, titled Neck Pillow, issued October 14, 2025, from Application No. 29/996,814, filed April 2, 2025. Its single claim is to "the ornamental design for a neck pillow, as shown and described" in eight drawing sheets; broken lines show portions that form no part of the claimed design. The USPTO record lists NeoBull Dynamics Inc. as applicant and assignee.

The accused product

The complaint alleges the defendants are foreign individuals or entities that operate Amazon storefronts and offer the same neck pillow through the same Amazon catalog listing and ASIN. It says NeoBull made a separate test purchase from each defendant for delivery in New York, and that the delivered units, and the white retail boxes they came in, were materially identical. It alleges the pillow's overall ornamental appearance is substantially the same as the claimed design to an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, and it pleads joinder under 35 U.S.C. 299 on the theory that the defendants sold the same article through a common listing and supply chain.

The count and the relief sought

Count I alleges that each defendant offered to sell and sold, and, on information and belief, imported, the accused pillow, infringing directly under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). NeoBull asks for preliminary and permanent injunctions, relief directed to online marketplaces under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), each defendant's total profits under 35 U.S.C. 289 or damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, enhanced damages for any infringement proven willful, attorneys' fees if the case is found exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, and costs.

The proposed intervenor and the TRO

NeoBull moved on October 15, 2026 for an emergency temporary restraining order (ECF No. 6) and for attachment of the defendants' proceeds from accused-product sales held by Amazon (ECF No. 12). The same day, a Chinese company moved to intervene (ECF No. 17). Its October 16 opposition (ECF No. 19) says it owns by assignment Chinese Design Patent CN 308502252 S, filed August 2, 2023 and published March 12, 2024, which it says discloses a substantially similar neck pillow before the April 2, 2025 filing date of NeoBull's application; that it licenses that design to distributors whose products it understands to follow it; and that it should get attorneys'-eyes-only access to the sealed Schedule A to learn whether its licensees are named. It said it was not asking the court to decide validity on the TRO record.

After a telephone conference on October 20, Judge Ronnie Abrams signed a temporary restraining order on October 22, 2026 (ECF No. 21). Pending the preliminary injunction hearing, it restrains the Schedule A defendants, and those acting in concert with them who receive notice, from making, importing, offering, or selling the accused product or any colorable variation that infringes the '646 patent, from opening new listings or seller accounts to get around the order, and from destroying related records. It directs Amazon to preserve records for the defendants' seller accounts and to temporarily suppress the shared accused ASIN and disable sales through that listing. It grants NeoBull's request for a temporary restraint preserving accused-product proceeds held by Amazon, capped for each defendant at the lesser of the funds Amazon holds for it or its sales revenue from the accused product, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 and New York C.P.L.R. 6201(1), 6210, 6211, and 6212, and alternatively as ancillary relief tied to the total-profit remedy of 35 U.S.C. 289. It also authorizes NeoBull to serve an expedited Rule 45 subpoena on Amazon. The order directs the defendants to show cause on November 2, 2026 why a preliminary injunction should not continue the restraints, set opposition and reply dates of October 28 and October 30, requires $15,000 in security, and keeps the order in effect for fourteen days unless extended. Counsel appeared for four Schedule A defendants on October 27 (ECF No. 24), and a response to the order to show cause was filed October 28 (ECF No. 27). On October 30 the proposed intervenor moved to withdraw its motion to intervene and its TRO opposition, saying it and NeoBull had reached a settlement and it no longer needed access to the sealed Schedule A, and Judge Abrams endorsed the request "Application granted" (ECF No. 30).

What to watch next

The docket shows a show cause hearing entry on November 2, 2026. Watch for the court's ruling on a preliminary injunction and on the attachment motion, and service on the Schedule A defendants. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.