AP Global v. Gaietyy et al.: Default Judgment & Permanent Injunction on Design Patent
AP Global, Inc. sued a Schedule A roster of defendants — including Gaietyy, Houmujiuyou, and Keten Direct — in the Northern District of Illinois for infringing design patent USD0950950S covering a case with adjustable internal dividers. No defendant appeared to contest the claims, resulting in a default final judgment, a finding of willful infringement, and a court-ordered permanent injunction within 375 days of filing.
Schedule A design patent enforcement ends in plaintiff’s uncontested default win
Filed on 28 March 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Martha M. Pacold, this action was brought by AP Global, Inc. (alongside plaintiff John Doe) against a broad Schedule A defendant list, with named defendants including e-commerce sellers Gaietyy, Houmujiuyou, and Keten Direct. The asserted patent — USD0950950S (application no. US29/765550) — is a design patent covering a case with adjustable internal dividers, a product category frequently targeted in marketplace enforcement campaigns.
The case closed on 7 April 2025 via default judgment after none of the defendants responded to the plaintiff’s motion for entry of default and default judgment. The court found willful infringement based on evidence submitted in support of both the preliminary injunction motion and the default judgment motion. A permanent injunction was entered, damages were awarded in the amount specified in the attached default final judgment order, and the plaintiff’s $10,000 surety bond was released to counsel.
The 375-day duration from filing to closure is consistent with standard Schedule A enforcement timelines in the Northern District of Illinois, where default judgments are routinely obtained against non-appearing overseas e-commerce defendants. The willfulness finding — admitted by virtue of the default — strengthens the injunction’s enforceability. The precise damages quantum beyond the bond release is not disclosed in the public docket record reviewed here.
Filing to Default Judgment in 375 days
375 days to default judgment — consistent with uncontested Schedule A enforcement timelines in N.D. Ill.
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for plaintiff and defendants
Default judgment: liability admitted by non-appearance
When a defendant fails to respond to a complaint or, as here, a motion for default judgment, the court may treat the failure to appear as an admission of liability. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, the court accepted the well-pleaded allegations as true and awarded relief consistent with the evidence submitted — including a willful infringement finding and a permanent injunction. No merits adjudication occurred.
Rule 55 default judgmentAP Global secures injunction and willfulness finding without trial
AP Global achieved the core commercial goals of a design patent enforcement action — a court-ordered permanent injunction and a finding of willful infringement — without contested litigation. The injunction bars continued sale of the infringing product. The willfulness finding, admitted by default, may support further enforcement steps against repeat or related sellers in future Schedule A actions.
Permanent injunction grantedNon-appearing defendants face injunction and damages by default
Gaietyy, Houmujiuyou, Keten Direct, and other Schedule A defendants who did not appear are now subject to a permanent injunction and damages award. Defendants who default lose the opportunity to challenge patent validity, claim scope, or damages quantum. Any future sale of the infringing product risks contempt proceedings. Defendants who wish to contest enforcement at this stage face a significantly higher procedural bar to reopening judgment.
Injunction binding on all named defendantsSchedule A enforcement playbook validated for design patent holders
This outcome is consistent with a well-established N.D. Illinois enforcement strategy targeting overseas e-commerce sellers through Schedule A complaints. Design patent holders in the consumer products space can expect similar results when defendants — typically operating on Amazon, Alibaba, or related platforms — fail to engage with US proceedings. The case reinforces that a design patent covering a commercially active product category carries meaningful enforcement leverage.
E-commerce design patent enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | John Doe | Individual | Consumer products IP enforcer — holder of design patent USD0950950SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | AP Global, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A To The Complaint | Individual | E-commerce marketplace sellers Gaietyy, Houmujiuyou, and Keten Direct, among Schedule A defendants.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Gaietyy | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Houmujiuyou | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Keten Direct | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Theodore Joseph Chiacchio | Attorney | Counsel for John DoeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Chiacchio IP, LLC | Law Firm | Representing John DoeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Martha M. Pacold | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s default judgment entry rests on two evidentiary foundations: plaintiff’s preliminary injunction submissions and the admission of liability arising from defendants’ non-appearance. The willfulness finding — made without contest — is notable because it satisfies the irreparable harm standard without requiring independent proof of intent. The permanent injunction language, coupled with the damages award in the attached order, suggests the relief granted tracks the full scope of what plaintiff sought. The absence of any defence argument means the injunction’s scope was not tested on narrowing grounds.
USD0950950S — Design patent: case with adjustable internal dividers
USD0950950S (application no. US29/765550) is a US design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a case featuring adjustable internal dividers. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the distinctive visual characteristics of a product rather than its functional attributes. The ‘D’ prefix designation confirms this is a design — not utility — patent, meaning the protected scope is the specific aesthetic embodiment shown in the patent’s figures. Design patents typically issue faster than utility patents and carry a 15-year term from grant.
Adjustable-divider storage cases represent a high-volume consumer product category sold extensively through Amazon and similar online marketplaces, making them a recurring target for design patent counterfeiting and copycats. A registered design patent in this space gives the holder a credible enforcement tool against visual knockoffs without needing to prove functional copying. For competitors and sourcing teams, the existence of an active design patent on this product form — and a court-confirmed willful infringement finding — raises the risk profile of selling substantially similar case designs in the US market.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD0950950S?
Any company designing, importing, or selling cases with adjustable internal dividers for the US market should assess whether their product’s ornamental appearance falls within the scope of USD0950950S. Design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — a relatively broad standard that can capture products that are not identical but are substantially similar in overall visual impression. Given that a permanent injunction is now in force, the risk of marketplace de-listing or contempt proceedings is real for sellers whose products were not party to this action but are visually similar.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD0950950S against your product designs, identify prior art that may bear on validity, and surface related design patent families that could create overlapping risk. For product teams and sourcing managers operating in the storage case category, running an Eureka FTO query before launch is materially lower-cost than defending against a Schedule A complaint in N.D. Illinois — particularly where defendants who do not appear face default judgment.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0950950S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving design patent infringement actions against Schedule A e-commerce defendants before the Northern District of Illinois follow closely similar procedural and outcome patterns to this case.
What this case signals for the consumer products design patent IP landscape
This default judgment reinforces the Northern District of Illinois as a preferred venue for Schedule A design patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers.
N.D. Illinois remains a high-efficiency venue for Schedule A design patent actions
AP Global obtained a permanent injunction and willfulness finding in 375 days without a contested hearing. Design patent holders targeting marketplace sellers — particularly those operating across multiple storefronts — should monitor this court’s Schedule A docket as a benchmark for enforcement speed and outcome predictability.
Willfulness by default amplifies the deterrent value of the injunction
Because defendants did not appear, the court accepted willful infringement as admitted. This finding matters beyond this case: it signals to the market that non-engagement with US enforcement actions carries lasting legal consequences, including potential contempt exposure if infringing products resurface under related seller accounts.
Doe v Individuals — key questions answered
A Schedule A complaint allows a plaintiff to sue multiple unknown or pseudonymous e-commerce defendants — listed by seller account rather than legal name — in a single action. The N.D. Illinois has become a preferred venue for this enforcement approach because of its established procedural framework for issuing TROs, asset freezes, and ultimately default judgments against non-appearing marketplace sellers.
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default final judgment after defendants failed to respond to the motion for default judgment. The court found willful infringement of design patent USD0950950S, entered a permanent injunction, and awarded damages as specified in the attached default judgment order. The plaintiff’s $10,000 surety bond was also released to counsel.
When a defendant defaults, the court treats the allegations — including willfulness — as admitted. A willfulness finding strengthens the injunction’s enforceability and may support enhanced damages claims. Practically, it also signals to marketplace platforms that the infringement was not inadvertent, which can facilitate takedown compliance and account suspension.
USD0950950S (application US29/765550) is a US design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a case with adjustable internal dividers. Design patents protect the visual appearance of a product, not its function. Infringement is assessed under the ordinary observer test — whether an ordinary consumer would find the accused product substantially similar in overall visual impression to the patented design.
Defendants who default can move to vacate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), but must show good cause, a meritorious defence, and lack of culpable conduct. In practice, non-appearing overseas e-commerce defendants rarely succeed in reopening Schedule A default judgments. The permanent injunction and damages award in this case are binding unless and until a court grants such relief.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.