Huawen Chen v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Water Bottle Cap Design Patent
Individual patent holder Huawen Chen filed suit against more than 50 online marketplace sellers for infringing US design patent D980,067, covering a water bottle cap design. The court entered a default judgment on 20 February 2024 — just 144 days after filing — awarding disgorgement of profits totalling over $90,000 across 40 named defendants.
Swift default judgment in a Schedule A e-commerce design patent sweep
On 29 September 2023, individual plaintiff Huawen Chen filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against a large group of anonymous online sellers — the so-called ‘Schedule A’ defendants — operating across platforms including Amazon, eBay, Walmart, and AliExpress. The asserted patent, US D980,067, issued 7 March 2023 and claims the ornamental design of a water bottle cap. Defendants included named entities such as Chengdu Lijia Tech Co, Shenzhen Ying Trading Co., and dozens of marketplace seller aliases.
Because none of the defendants appeared or answered, Judge Mary M. Rowland granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment on 20 February 2024. The judgment permanently enjoins all defaulting defendants from selling, importing, or aiding infringement of the D980,067 design. Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which permits recovery of an infringer’s total profit from the sale of an infringing article of manufacture, the court awarded individualised profit amounts ranging from a minimum of $250 to a high of $23,763.47 (shangdianchuwei), with total recoveries consistent with restrained marketplace and payment-processor account balances.
The 144-day timeline from filing to final judgment is notably short and consistent with the well-established Northern District of Illinois ‘Schedule A’ litigation playbook, which leverages expedited discovery and electronic service to move quickly against non-appearing defendants. The public record does not disclose whether any defendants subsequently moved to vacate the default, nor whether full satisfaction of the profit awards was achieved. The relatively modest per-defendant awards suggest many sellers had limited restrained funds, though the collective total signals meaningful commercial activity around the asserted design.
Filing to settlement in 144 days
144 days — from filing to final default judgment, well below the median for multi-defendant design patent cases
Default judgment: profit disgorgement and permanent injunction under 35 U.S.C. § 289
Why § 289 matters: total profit, not lost profits
35 U.S.C. § 289 allows a design patent holder to recover the infringer’s total profit from the infringing article — without needing to apportion to the patented feature. This is a uniquely powerful remedy for design patents and was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Samsung v. Apple (2016). Here, each defendant’s award reflects their actual restrained marketplace earnings, making § 289 especially effective in Schedule A actions where account freezes precede judgment.
§ 289 total profit disgorgementDefault judgment: what non-appearance means legally
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to respond to the complaint. The court accepts plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and awards relief without a merits trial. Defendants retain a narrow right to move to vacate under FRCP 55(c) and 60(b), but must show good cause. For anonymous marketplace sellers, locating and serving those defendants through normal channels is impractical — hence electronic and publication service, which the court found constitutionally adequate here.
FRCP 55(b) default judgmentPayment processor freezes convert judgment to cash
A critical feature of Schedule A litigation is the pre-judgment asset freeze: the court orders PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, Ant Financial, and Alibaba to restrain defendants’ funds during proceedings. On entry of judgment, those funds are released directly to plaintiff. This mechanism bypasses the typical difficulty of collecting against overseas defendants with no US assets, making the remedy practically enforceable where conventional collection would fail.
Asset freeze → automatic recoveryPermanent injunction reaches platforms and confederates
The injunction extends beyond named defendants to cover their ‘officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, confederates, and all persons acting in active concert.’ Platform operators — Amazon, eBay, Walmart, AliExpress — are required to disable infringing listings within 10 business days of notice. The order also anticipates re-listing under new aliases by granting plaintiff ongoing authority to serve supplemental proceedings on payment processors if new accounts are identified.
Platform-level takedown authorityFull party and counsel information
| Role | Nom | Type | Détail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demandeur | Huawen Chen | Entreprise | Individual design patent holder — asserting US D980,067, a water bottle cap ornamental designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Défendeur | Individulas, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Entreprise | 50+ anonymous e-commerce marketplace sellers across Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and WalmartSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carla Elizabeth Buterman | Attorney | Counsel for Huawen ChenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Mary M. Rowland | Juge en chef | Illinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s default judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 289 awards each defendant’s total profit from infringing sales — not merely plaintiff’s lost profits — a distinction that significantly amplifies the remedy. The individualised profit chart reflects account balances actually frozen during proceedings, meaning the awards are substantially self-executing. The permanent injunction’s reach to platform operators and payment processors, combined with ongoing supplemental service authority, ensures that attempts to re-establish infringing storefronts under new aliases remain actionable without fresh litigation.
US D980,067 — Ornamental Design for a Water Bottle Cap
US D980,067 is a US design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a water bottle cap, issued 7 March 2023 from application US 29/836,500. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture — meaning any product whose cap design is substantially similar in the eye of an ordinary observer may infringe, regardless of how the cap functions. The relatively short pendency between application and grant is consistent with design patent prosecution timelines at the USPTO, which typically run 18–24 months.
The water bottle and hydration accessories market is a high-volume, commoditised consumer category dominated by third-party marketplace sellers, many operating from low-cost manufacturing bases in China. A design patent in this space can act as an effective barrier against copycat listings, particularly when combined with Schedule A enforcement tactics. Competitors and white-label manufacturers sourcing bottle cap designs should treat any recently issued design patent in this category as a live litigation risk, given the demonstrated willingness of individual patent holders to pursue large defendant pools.
Should your product team run an FTO check against US D980,067?
Any brand, manufacturer, importer, or marketplace seller dealing in water bottle caps — or hydration accessories featuring a distinctive cap design — should assess their exposure to US D980,067. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is an active litigant, and the Schedule A model means enforcement can extend to dozens of sellers simultaneously. The relevant question is not whether your cap functions differently, but whether its ornamental appearance would be substantially similar to D980,067 in the eye of an ordinary observer.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can analyse the visual claim scope of D980,067 against your product’s design, flag design-around opportunities, and identify prior art that might support a validity challenge. Eureka’s claim monitoring alerts your team if new continuation or continuation-in-part applications are filed by the same applicant — critical early warning for product teams planning future SKU launches in the hydration accessories category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0980067S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent infringement cases — hydration and consumer goods
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent enforcement landscape
The Huawen Chen case is a textbook Schedule A enforcement action — understanding its mechanics is essential for IP teams monitoring design patent risk on online marketplaces.
Schedule A litigation is the dominant model for design patent enforcement against online sellers
The Northern District of Illinois has become the venue of choice for design patent holders targeting anonymous e-commerce sellers. The combination of expedited discovery, electronic service, pre-judgment asset freezes, and § 289’s total-profit remedy creates a high-leverage, low-friction enforcement pathway. IP teams defending marketplace sellers should monitor for TRO filings in ILND as an early warning signal.
A design patent issued in early 2023 generated enforceable judgments before year-end
D980,067 issued March 2023 and produced a final judgment by February 2024 — under 12 months from grant to recovery. This illustrates how quickly a design patent on a consumer product can be weaponised against marketplace competition. Product teams launching in high-volume consumer goods categories should conduct design patent clearance searches at, or even before, commercialisation.
Huawen v Individulas — key questions answered
US D980,067 is a US design patent issued 7 March 2023 claiming the ornamental design of a water bottle cap. In case 1:23-cv-14304, plaintiff Huawen Chen asserted this patent against 50+ online marketplace sellers, alleging their products reproduced the protected design. The court granted default judgment, confirming infringement and awarding profit disgorgement under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
The court awarded each defaulting defendant’s profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which entitles a design patent holder to the infringer’s total profit on the infringing article without apportionment. Individual awards ranged from $250 to $23,763.47. The amounts reflect actual funds restrained in defendants’ marketplace and payment processor accounts during the proceedings, which were released directly to plaintiff upon judgment.
A Schedule A filing is a litigation strategy commonly used in the Northern District of Illinois where a plaintiff sues a large group of anonymous e-commerce sellers collectively identified in an attached schedule. Plaintiffs obtain expedited discovery to identify sellers, serve via electronic means, and seek TROs to freeze marketplace and payment processor accounts. The Northern District of Illinois is the preferred venue due to its familiarity with this procedure and its efficient handling of default judgments in such actions.
The permanent injunction requires third-party platform operators — including Amazon, eBay, Walmart, and AliExpress — to disable and cease displaying infringing advertisements within 10 business days of notice from plaintiff. Payment processors including PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, and Ant Financial are ordered to release restrained funds to plaintiff. The order also grants ongoing authority to serve supplemental proceedings if defendants open new accounts.
Yes, in principle. Under FRCP 55(c) and 60(b), a defendant may move to set aside a default judgment by showing good cause — typically excusable neglect, a meritorious defence, and lack of prejudice to plaintiff. However, the practical bar is high for overseas marketplace sellers who received only electronic notice and may have limited US legal resources. The public record does not indicate any such motions were filed in this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.