Amborui Electronic Tech v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in 69 Days
Amborui Electronic Tech. Co., Ltd. secured a default judgment and permanent injunction against anonymous online marketplace sellers accused of infringing design patent USD1052445S — an artificial plant product. The Illinois Northern District Court ordered disgorgement of infringer profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 and directed Temu, Walmart, and eBay to freeze and release defendant funds within 14 days.
Schedule A Design Patent Sweep Ends in Swift Default Judgment
On August 7, 2025, Amborui Electronic Tech. Co., Ltd. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a class of anonymous online sellers — identified only as ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — alleging infringement of design patent USD1052445S, which protects the ornamental appearance of an artificial plant product sold through e-commerce platforms including Temu, Walmart, and eBay.
With no defendant entering an appearance or filing a response, Judge Jorge L. Alonso granted Amborui’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment on October 15, 2025 — just 69 days after filing. The court issued a permanent injunction barring defendants from any further use, sale, or distribution of infringing goods bearing the design patent, and awarded plaintiff profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, the design patent-specific disgorgement statute. Third-party providers were ordered to freeze and release defendant account funds to plaintiff within seven to fourteen days.
The 69-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated pace typical of Schedule A ‘whack-a-mole’ enforcement actions, where plaintiffs leverage TROs, asset freezes, and marketplace cooperation to resolve cases before defendants can meaningfully respond. The public record does not disclose the aggregate damages figure recovered under § 289, nor the number of individual seller defendants named on Schedule A — details that would materially affect the commercial significance of this judgment.
Filing to Default Judgment in 69 days
Case resolved in 69 days — well below the median for design patent infringement actions in N.D. Ill.
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: plaintiff wins without a contested merits ruling
A default judgment is entered when defendants fail to appear or respond. No merits determination was made — the court accepted plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and granted all requested relief. Under Federal Rule 55, this is a valid final judgment enforceable against named defendants. It does not establish binding precedent on the validity or scope of USD1052445S.
No merits adjudicationAmborui secures injunction and frozen marketplace funds
Amborui obtained the full range of relief sought: a permanent injunction, disgorgement of infringer profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, and direct release of funds from defendants’ Temu, Walmart, and eBay accounts. The $76,000 bond was also returned. This outcome is commercially significant — asset recovery occurs before defendants can dissipate funds, a key advantage of the Schedule A litigation model.
Full injunctive + monetary reliefDefaulting sellers face permanent ban and frozen assets
Defendants who failed to appear are now subject to a permanent injunction and profit disgorgement enforceable across all connected marketplace accounts. Third-party providers — including Temu, Walmart, and eBay — are bound by the order. Defendants retain the theoretical right to move to vacate the default judgment under Rule 60(b), but doing so requires appearing before the court and establishing excusable neglect or a meritorious defence.
Permanent injunction; assets seizedSchedule A model validates rapid marketplace enforcement for design patents
This case demonstrates the effectiveness of the Schedule A enforcement playbook for design patent holders in the consumer goods and e-commerce space. The combination of asset freezes, marketplace platform cooperation, and § 289 profit disgorgement — resolved in under 70 days — signals that design patent holders with active e-commerce presences have a viable, low-friction enforcement path against anonymous counterfeit sellers operating on major U.S. platforms.
E-commerce design patent enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Amborui Electronic Tech. Co., Ltd. | Company | Consumer goods e-commerce brand — holder of design patent USD1052445S (artificial plant)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers operating on Temu, Walmart, and eBay (Schedule A).Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Faye Yifei Deng | Attorney | Counsel for Amborui Electronic Tech. Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | YK Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Amborui Electronic Tech. Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jorge L. Alonso | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order grants Amborui the full scope of relief requested — permanent injunction, § 289 profit disgorgement, and asset freeze compliance by named third-party platforms. Because no defendant appeared, the court made no independent finding on design patent validity or infringement scope; the factual record is entirely plaintiff-sourced. The order’s binding effect on Temu, Walmart, and eBay as third-party providers is the most commercially significant element, creating immediate, enforceable obligations without a separate contempt proceeding.
USD1052445S — Ornamental Design for an Artificial Plant
USD1052445S is a U.S. design patent (application number US29/893202) protecting the ornamental appearance of an artificial plant product. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental visual characteristics of a manufactured article — not its functional attributes. The scope of protection is defined entirely by the patent drawings, making visual similarity the primary infringement test under the ‘ordinary observer’ standard established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.
In the competitive artificial plant and home décor e-commerce market, design patents are a particularly powerful tool because they are faster to obtain than utility patents, harder to design around when ornamental appearance is the product’s primary consumer appeal, and eligible for the § 289 total profit disgorgement remedy. Any seller — domestic or cross-border — offering an artificial plant with a confusingly similar ornamental design on U.S. marketplace platforms should treat USD1052445S as a live enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1052445S?
If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or sells artificial plants or similar decorative botanical products for the U.S. market — particularly through Temu, Walmart, eBay, or Amazon — USD1052445S warrants a freedom-to-operate review. The default judgment confirms Amborui is actively enforcing this design patent against online sellers, and the Schedule A model means enforcement can be initiated rapidly and at scale against multiple defendants simultaneously.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product teams and IP counsel to map the visual claim scope of USD1052445S against your product designs, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument if challenged, and monitor for continuation or related design applications filed by Amborui. Proactive FTO screening before launch is significantly less costly than responding to a TRO and asset freeze after a Schedule A complaint is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1052445S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent enforcement actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois targeting anonymous online marketplace sellers of consumer goods.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent IP landscape
Schedule A enforcement in N.D. Ill. continues to deliver fast, asset-backed outcomes for design patent holders targeting online marketplace infringers.
§ 289 profit disgorgement makes design patents potent against marketplace sellers
Unlike utility patents, design patents allow recovery of the infringer’s total profits from the entire article — not just apportioned damages. In Schedule A cases where defendants sell high volumes on platforms like Temu, § 289 can yield disproportionately large awards relative to enforcement cost. Rights holders with ornamental product designs should audit their design patent portfolio for this enforcement potential.
Platform cooperation is the enforcement lever — not courtroom litigation
The operative mechanism in this case was not a merits ruling but the court’s authority to compel Temu, Walmart, and eBay to freeze and transfer defendant funds. Design patent holders should evaluate whether their agreements or relationships with major e-commerce platforms are structured to support rapid compliance with such orders — and whether their IP is registered in forms courts will act on swiftly.
Amborui v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in favour of plaintiff Amborui Electronic Tech. Co., Ltd. on October 15, 2025. The court issued a permanent injunction, ordered disgorgement of infringer profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, and directed Temu, Walmart, and eBay to freeze and release defendant funds to plaintiff. The case closed 69 days after filing.
Section 289 allows a design patent holder to recover the total profits the infringer earned from selling the infringing article — without apportionment to the patented design. This is a design patent-specific remedy unavailable for utility patents and can result in damages far exceeding a reasonable royalty measure, particularly where defendants sell high volumes through online marketplaces.
The case asserts design patent USD1052445S (application number US29/893202), which protects the ornamental appearance of an artificial plant product. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of a manufactured article and are enforced under the ‘ordinary observer’ infringement standard.
Schedule A defendants are anonymous online sellers identified by marketplace seller aliases rather than legal names, a common structure in IP enforcement actions against cross-border e-commerce infringers. A defendant subject to a default judgment may move to vacate it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) by demonstrating excusable neglect and a meritorious defence, but this requires appearing before the court.
The default judgment order named Temu, Walmart, and eBay as third-party providers required to cease displaying defendant advertisements, freeze defendant accounts, and release funds to plaintiff within seven to fourteen calendar days of receiving the order. This use of platform cooperation is a defining feature of the Schedule A enforcement model.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.