In a swift and decisive ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in favor of patent holder Gulan Liao against dozens of e-commerce sellers accused of infringing U.S. Design Patent No. USD891,522 — covering the ornamental design of a toy aircraft commercially known as the “Flying Orb.” The case, filed October 30, 2023, and closed just 134 days later on March 12, 2024, underscores the increasing effectiveness of “Schedule A” patent enforcement actions targeting marketplace sellers operating on platforms like Amazon, AliExpress, and Wish.com.

For patent attorneys, this case illustrates how design patent litigation — when paired with strategic use of default procedures — can rapidly neutralize large networks of infringing online sellers. For R&D leaders and product developers sourcing or marketing toy products, it sends a clear signal: ornamental design patents carry real enforcement teeth, even against anonymous or overseas sellers.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-15435 | Court: N.D. Illinois | Judge: Hon. John J. Tharp, Jr.

Aperçu du dossier

Les parties

Le brevet en cause

This landmark case involved U.S. Design Patent No. USD891,522, covering the ornamental design of a toy aircraft. Design patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and protect ornamental appearance rather than functional technology.

• • US D891,522 — Ornamental design for a toy aircraft (Flying Orb)

Les produits incriminés

Defendants were alleged to have sold unauthorized reproductions or colorable imitations of the Flying Orb Design through online marketplace accounts and dedicated domain names — primarily targeting U.S. consumers through Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Alibaba, Wish.com, and DHgate storefronts.

Chronologie du litige et historique de la procédure

The case moved with notable speed — 134 days from filing to closed — a hallmark of Schedule A default actions when defendants fail to appear. Upon filing, Gulan Liao successfully obtained a preliminary injunction early in proceedings, freezing defendants’ assets and online accounts before judgment.

Service of process was effectuated through electronic publication and email — a court-approved method increasingly accepted in cross-border e-commerce cases where traditional service is impracticable. No defendant answered the complaint or appeared in any capacity, triggering default procedures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55.

Chief Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. presided, entering findings of liability and the comprehensive default judgment order on March 12, 2024.

Le verdict et l'analyse juridique

Résultat

The court granted Gulan Liao’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in full. Because no defendant appeared or contested the allegations, the complaint’s factual allegations were deemed admitted. The court found sufficient basis to conclude that Defaulting Defendants had sold products directly and/or indirectly infringing the Flying Orb Design under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

Relief awarded includes:

• • Permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from offering, selling, or importing any unauthorized reproduction of the Flying Orb Design.
• • Disgorgement of profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, with per-defendant awards detailed on Schedule A.
• • Domain name transfer or disablement ordered against defendant domain registrars (including GoDaddy, Namecheap, and others).
• • Account freezing and fund release directed at third-party payment processors including PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, and Ant Financial — with funds to be released to plaintiff within 14 days.
• • Ongoing supplemental enforcement authority under FRCP 69 until full satisfaction of damages.

The $80,000 surety bond posted by Gulan Liao was ordered released back to plaintiff or counsel, Whitewood Law PLLC.

Analyse des causes du verdict

Liability was established by default — meaning the court did not conduct a full merits trial or claim construction hearing. Under controlling precedent, a defendant’s failure to appear renders the complaint’s well-pled allegations admitted. The court’s legal analysis focused on whether the complaint established a plausible basis for design patent infringement under § 271 — which it found satisfied.

Design patent infringement is assessed under the ordinary observer test (Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)): whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into thinking the accused design is the same as the patented design. The court’s default findings implicitly adopted this standard based on the complaint’s uncontested allegations.

Signification juridique

This case reinforces the enforceability of design patents in the toy and consumer goods sector, particularly against distributed networks of overseas online sellers. It also affirms that:

1. Electronic service via email and online publication satisfies due process requirements in Schedule A actions against anonymous or overseas e-commerce defendants.
2. Courts will exercise broad third-party provider jurisdiction — compelling platforms like Amazon, AliExpress, and payment processors to freeze accounts and transfer funds without direct litigation against those platforms.
3. Default judgment is a viable and powerful enforcement tool for individual design patent holders, not just large corporations.