Court Strikes One of Shuangxi Zhang's Two Redacted Schedule A Design Patent Complaints.

The two complaints

The cases are Shuangxi Zhang v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Nos. 1:26-cv-26374 and 1:26-cv-26375 (S.D. Fla.), each an 11-page complaint with a jury demand entered on the docket September 16, 2026 (ECF No. 1). The public text of the two complaints is the same apart from the case numbers. Each describes Zhang as an individual residing in Shaodong, Hunan Province, China, who owns the asserted patent, is listed on it as applicant and inventor, and makes products embodying the claimed design that are imported into and sold in the United States.

Each complaint asserts a single U.S. design patent, which it calls the Asserted Patent. In the public versions the patent number, the patent title, and the article named in the claim are blacked out, as is one full section of the factual background. The dockets list Schedule A (Exhibit 1), the copy of the patent (Exhibit 2), and the exhibits showing the accused product pages, Amazon order records, the defendants' registered Amazon addresses, a claim chart, and product photos as filed in redacted form.

The allegations and the relief sought

The complaints allege the defendants sell the accused products on Amazon under the seller aliases and ASINs listed on Schedule A and that each accepted and fulfilled Amazon orders shipped into the district. They allege, on information and belief, that the defendants are Chinese entities with no United States residence, that they are interrelated because their products have virtually identical designs, and that they register seller accounts through shell entities or unrelated individuals. They allege the accused products are substantially the same in overall appearance as the claimed design.

Count I alleges patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271. Zhang asks for temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions, orders directing online marketplaces to disable the defendants' accounts and listings, damages of at least a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. 284, increased by three times, or alternatively the defendants' profits under 35 U.S.C. 289, a finding that the case is exceptional with attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, and interest.

No. 26374: the complaint is struck

No. 1:26-cv-26374 was first assigned to Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II (ECF No. 2), who signed an omnibus order on Schedule A causes of action on September 16, 2026 (ECF No. 5). In a paperless order the same day (ECF No. 6), the court struck the complaint because Zhang had filed it with redactions without moving for leave, citing Local Rule 5.4(a), under which court filings are public records unless law, rule, or order provides otherwise. The order directed Zhang to file an amended complaint that complies with the Local Rules and the omnibus order by September 30, 2026, and cautioned that motions to seal or to proceed anonymously in intellectual property cases are disfavored.

On September 30, Zhang filed a response (ECF No. 9), a motion to seal (ECF No. 10), and an amended complaint (ECF No. 11), and an order reassigning the case was entered (ECF No. 12). The amended complaint and the reassignment order are not available. The docket shows an order on the motion to seal on October 1, a second motion to seal on October 29 (ECF No. 17), and an order on it on October 30 (ECF No. 18).

No. 26375

No. 1:26-cv-26375 was first assigned to Judge Roy K. Altman (ECF No. 2), who signed an order in cases with multiple defendants (ECF No. 5) and an omnibus order on Schedule A causes of action (ECF No. 6) on September 16, 2026. The omnibus order denied any pending motions without prejudice and with leave to refile by September 30, and directed Zhang's counsel to file a verified response to the order by that date. Zhang filed a response on September 30 (ECF No. 9). An order reassigning the case was entered October 29, 2026 (ECF No. 11); it is not available.

What to watch next

Watch for the judges assigned after reassignment, rulings on sealing, any temporary restraining order motion, and any public filing that identifies the asserted design patent. Either case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.