Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Bakhtiyari v. Schedule A Defendants — Face & Lip Exercise Device Patent | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:25-cv-04178
FiledApr 2025
ClosedSep 2025
Patent Litigation

Bakhtiyari v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Face & Lip Exercise Device Design Patent

Individual inventor Maryam Bakhtiyari sued a slate of anonymous e-commerce sellers for infringing design patent D929,510 covering a face and lip exercise device. After no defendant appeared, Judge Alonso granted default judgment in 147 days — delivering permanent injunctions and statutory damages against every defaulting seller.

Resolution time
147days
147 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the N.D. Illinois median for Schedule A cases
Patents asserted
2
USD929510 and 1 further design patent asserted — face and lip exercise device ornamental design
Outcome
Default Judgment
Plaintiff wins without contest; defendants failed to appear and are deemed in default
Cost ruling
$250 per defendant
Statutory damages awarded per defaulting defendant; $62,000 surety bond released to plaintiff
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Individual inventor wins default judgment against counterfeit e-commerce network

Filed on 16 April 2025 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Jorge L. Alonso, this action was brought by individual inventor Maryam Bakhtiyari against an anonymous group of online sellers collectively identified as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule A.’ The asserted patents are design patent USD929510 and USD916211, both covering the ornamental design of a face and lip exercise device. Defendants allegedly operated e-commerce storefronts on platforms including Amazon, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish.com, and DHgate, shipping counterfeit goods to US consumers including Illinois residents.

On 10 September 2025 — just 147 days after filing — the court entered a default judgment against all defaulting defendants who had not been previously dismissed. Service was effected via electronic publication and email, satisfying constitutional notice requirements. Because no defendant answered or appeared, all allegations were deemed admitted. The court ordered permanent injunctions, domain name transfers or disablement, account freezes across major payment processors, and the release of frozen funds to plaintiff as partial satisfaction of the $250-per-defendant statutory damages award.

The swift resolution is consistent with the accelerated tempo typical of Schedule A counterfeit enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois, which has become a preferred venue for this litigation strategy. The $250 per-defendant statutory damages figure — drawn from 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) — is relatively modest per defendant but scales with the number of stores named on Schedule A. The public record does not disclose the precise number of defendants or the aggregate damages collected, nor whether any frozen platform funds fully satisfied the judgment.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:25-cv-04178
CourtIllinois Northern
JudgeJorge L. Alonso
FiledApril 16, 2025
ClosedSeptember 10, 2025
Duration147 days
OutcomeDefault Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDefault Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Illinois Northern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Default Judgment in 147 days

147 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the N.D. Illinois median for Schedule A cases

Case timeline: Complaint filed APR 16 2025, JUN–JUL — 147 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Maryam Bakhtiyari v The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule A from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. APR 16 2025 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings SEP 10 2025 Default Judgment 147 DAYS TOTAL
Default judgment

Default judgment granted: what the ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Default judgment: no contest, all allegations admitted

A default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond. The court deems all well-pleaded allegations admitted. Here, none of the Schedule A defendants answered, so the court accepted Bakhtiyari’s infringement claims as uncontroverted and entered judgment — including a permanent injunction — without a merits trial. This is a plaintiff-favourable but procedurally limited ruling: it binds only named defaulting defendants.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 default
Plaintiff outcome

Permanent injunction and asset seizure secured without trial

Bakhtiyari obtained a permanent injunction barring defendants from using patent D929,510, domain name transfers or disablements, and frozen funds released from PayPal, Alibaba, Amazon Pay, and other processors. The $62,000 surety bond posted during the preliminary injunction phase is also returned. Future infringers can be pursued via supplemental proceedings under FRCP 69, giving plaintiff ongoing enforcement authority beyond this judgment.

Permanent injunction granted
Defendant outcome

Deemed in default; accounts frozen and domains seized

Defaulting defendants face a permanent injunction, loss of their e-commerce accounts on major platforms, domain name transfer or disablement, and release of all frozen funds to plaintiff up to the statutory damages amount. By failing to appear, defendants surrendered any opportunity to contest validity or non-infringement. The judgment is final as to each named defendant, though the Schedule A enforcement model means additional defendants could still be identified and pursued.

No defence entered
Commercial implications

Schedule A model reinforces e-commerce design patent enforcement

This case is consistent with a well-established N.D. Illinois enforcement template targeting counterfeit sellers across Asian-sourced e-commerce platforms. The combination of preliminary asset freezes, electronic service, and rapid default judgment creates significant deterrent effect at scale. For legitimate competitors in the facial exercise device market, the reinforced enforceability of D929,510 raises the bar for any product overlapping with its ornamental scope — even absent a merits ruling on claim scope.

E-commerce enforcement risk
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:25-cv-04178 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffMaryam BakhtiyariIndividualIndividual inventor and design patent holder — holder of USD929510 (face and lip exercise device)Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule AIndividualAnonymous e-commerce sellers operating via Amazon, AliExpress, DHgate, Wish.com and similar platformsSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRobert Michael DewittyAttorneyCounsel for Maryam BakhtiyariSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmDewitty And Associates, Chtd.Law FirmRepresenting Maryam BakhtiyariSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Jorge L. AlonsoJudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“This action having been commenced by Plaintiff MARYAM BAKHTIYARI, (“Plaintiff”) against the defendants identified on Schedule A, and using the Defendant Domain Names and Online Marketplace Accounts identified on Schedule A (collectively, the “Defendant Internet Stores”), and Plaintiff having moved for entry of Default and Default Judgment against the defendants identified on Schedule A attached hereto which have not yet been dismissed from this case (collectively, “Defaulting Defendants”); This Court having entered a preliminary injunction; Plaintiff having properly completed service of process on Defaulting Defendants, the combination of providing notice via electronic publication and e-mail, along with any notice that Defaulting Defendants received from domain name registrars and payment processors, being notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise Defaulting Defendants of the pendency of the action and affording them the opportunity to answer and present their objections; and Case: 1:25-cv-04178 Document #: 43 Filed: 09/10/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:234 2 None of the Defaulting Defendants having answered or appeared in any way, and the time for answering having expired, so that the allegations of the Complaint are uncontroverted and are deemed admitted; This Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over Defaulting Defendants because Defaulting Defendants directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Plaintiff has provided a basis to conclude that Defaulting Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more seller aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, and have sold products using infringing products of Plaintiff’s federally registered patent (the “Plaintiff’s ‘510 Patent”) to residents of Illinois. [In this case, Plaintiff has presented screenshot evidence that each Defendant e-commerce store is reaching out to do business with Illinois residents by operating one or more commercial, interactive internet stores through which Illinois residents can and do purchase products using infringing versions of the Plaintiff’s ‘510 Patent. See Docket No. 8, which includes screenshot evidence confirming that each Defendant e-commerce store does stand ready, willing and able to ship its counterfeit goods to customers in Illinois bearing infringing and/or counterfeit versions of the Plaintiff’s ‘510 Patent Plaintiff’s Patent. The Plaintiff’s ‘510 Patent is included in the below chart. Registration Number Registered Patent D929510 FACE AND LIP EXERCISE DEVICE Case: 1:25-cv-04178 Document #: 43 Filed: 09/10/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:235 3 Plaintiff has established that Defendants infringed Plaintiff’s patent rights in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 171. Accordingly, this Court orders that Plaintiff Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED as follows, that Defaulting Defendants are deemed in default, and that this Default Judgment is entered against Defaulting Defendants. This Court further orders that: 1. Defaulting Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them be permanently enjoined and restrained from: a. using the Plaintiff’s ‘510 Patent or any reproductions, counterfeit copies, or colorable imitations in any manner in connection with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product that is not a genuine Plaintiff product or not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the Plaintiff’s ‘510 Patent; b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a genuine Plaintiff product or any other product produced by Plaintiff, that is not Plaintiff’s or not produced under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff and approved by Plaintiff for sale under the Plaintiff’s ‘510 Patent; c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defaulting Defendants’ products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff; and d. manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, products or inventory not manufactured by or for Plaintiff, nor authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or Case: 1:25-cv-04178 Document #: 43 Filed: 09/10/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:236 4 offered for sale, and which bear any of the Plaintiff’s ‘510 Patent, or any reproductions, counterfeit copies or colorable imitations. 2. The domain name registries for the Defendant Domain Names, including, but not limited to, VeriSign, Inc., Neustar, Inc., Afilias Limited, CentralNic, Nominet, and the Public Interest Registry, and the domain name registrars, including, but not limited to, GoDaddy Operating Company LLC, Name.com, PDR LTD. d/b/a/ PublicDomainRegistry.com, and Namecheap Inc., within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order, shall, at Plaintiff’s choosing: a. transfer the Defendant Domain Names to Plaintiff’s control, including unlocking and changing the registrar of record for the Defendant Domain Names to a registrar of Plaintiff’s selection, and the domain name registrars shall take any steps necessary to transfer the Defendant Domain Names to a registrar of Plaintiff’s selection; or b. disable the Defendant Domain Names and make them inactive and untransferable. 3. Defaulting Defendants and any third party with actual notice of this Order who is providing services for any of the Defaulting Defendants, or in connection with any of the Defaulting Defendants’ Online Marketplaces, including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as eBay, Inc., AliExpress, Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. (“Alibaba”), Amazon.com, ContextLogic, Inc. d/b/a Wish.com (“Wish.com”), and Dhgate (collectively, the “Third Party Providers”), shall within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order cease: a. using, linking to, transferring, selling, exercising control over, or otherwise owning the Online Marketplace Accounts, or any other online marketplace account that is being used to sell or is the means by which Defaulting Defendants could Case: 1:25-cv-04178 Document #: 43 Filed: 09/10/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:237 5 continue to sell counterfeit and infringing goods using the Plaintiff’s ‘510 Patent; and b. operating and/or hosting websites that are involved with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product bearing the Plaintiff’s ‘510 Patent or any reproductions, counterfeit copies or colorable imitations thereof that is not a genuine Plaintiff product or not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the Plaintiff’s ‘510 Patent. 4. Upon Plaintiff’s request, those with notice of this Order, including the Third Party Providers as defined in Paragraph 3, shall within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of such notice, disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with Defaulting Defendants in connection with the sale of counterfeit and infringing goods using the Plaintiff’s ‘510 Patent. 5. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2), Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages from each of the Defaulting Defendants in the amount of $250.00 for willful use of counterfeit Plaintiff’s ‘510 Patent on products sold through at least the Defendant Internet Stores. This award shall apply to each distinct Defaulting Defendant only once, even if they are listed under multiple different aliases in the Complaint and Schedule A. 6. Any Third Party Providers holding funds for Defaulting Defendants, including PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”), Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Ant Financial Services Group (“Ant Financial”), and Amazon Pay, shall, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order, permanently restrain and enjoin any accounts connected to Defaulting Defendants or the Defendant Internet Stores from transferring or disposing of any funds (up to the statutory damages awarded in Paragraph 6 above) or other of Defaulting Defendants’ assets. Case: 1:25-cv-04178 Document #: 43 Filed: 09/10/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:238 6 7. All monies (up to the amount of the statutory damages awarded in Paragraph 6 above) currently restrained in Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts, including monies held by Third Party Providers such as PayPal, Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay, are hereby released to Plaintiff as partial payment of the above-identified damages, and Third Party Providers, including PayPal, Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay, are ordered to release to Plaintiff the amounts from Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of this Order. 8. Until Plaintiff has recovered full payment of monies owed to it by any Defaulting Defendant, Plaintiff shall have the ongoing authority to commence supplemental proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69. 9. In the event that Plaintiff identifies any additional online marketplace accounts or financial accounts owned by Defaulting Defendants, Plaintiff may send notice of any supplemental proceeding, including a citation to discover assets, to Defaulting Defendants by e-mail at the e-mail addresses identified in Exhibit B attached hereto and any e-mail addresses provided for Defaulting Defendants by third parties. 10. The $62,000 (sixty-two thousand dollars) surety bond posted by Plaintiff is hereby released to Plaintiff or its counsel, Robert M. DeWitty. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the surety bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court to Plaintiff or its counsel. This is a Default Judgment.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:25-cv-04178, Illinois Northern District Court

The default judgment order functions as a full merits substitute: because no defendant appeared, the court accepted Bakhtiyari’s well-pleaded allegations of design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 171 as admitted. The judgment’s scope is notably broad — extending to domain registrars, payment processors, and marketplace platforms — reflecting the N.D. Illinois court’s established template for Schedule A counterfeit enforcement. The $250 per-defendant statutory damages figure is the minimum available under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) but multiplies across every Schedule A entry, and the release of frozen platform funds ensures immediate partial recovery for plaintiff.

PACER case 1:25-cv-04178 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USD929510 — Ornamental design for a face and lip exercise device

Publication No.USD0929510S
Application No.US29/778271
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design for a face and lip exercise device
Cited in actionApril 16, 2025

Publication No.USD0916211S
Application No.US29/708777
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design for a facial exercise accessory
Cited in actionApril 16, 2025

USD929510 is a US design patent granted on the ornamental appearance of a face and lip exercise device — a product in the growing facial fitness and anti-ageing wellness category. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of a manufactured article rather than its functional elements. A second design patent, USD916211, is also asserted in this action, suggesting Bakhtiyari holds a design patent family around this product line. Design patent protection is typically narrower in claim scope than utility patents but is highly effective against visually similar copycat products.

Facial exercise devices occupy an expanding consumer wellness segment driven by demand for non-invasive anti-ageing tools. The Schedule A enforcement approach — targeting dozens of anonymous overseas e-commerce sellers simultaneously — suggests Bakhtiyari identified widespread design copying across platforms like Amazon and AliExpress. For competing brands, the reinforced enforceability of this design patent family signals that ornamental similarity to D929,510 or D916,211 creates actionable infringement risk, particularly for products shipped into the US market through the same major marketplace channels.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against USD929510 and USD916211?

Any business sourcing, manufacturing, or reselling facial exercise devices — particularly through Amazon, AliExpress, DHgate, or Wish.com — should treat this case as a direct signal to conduct an FTO assessment. The default judgment confirms that D929,510 is actively enforced and that courts will act quickly against sellers who do not respond. Products with visual similarity to the patented ornamental design are at immediate risk of platform account suspension and asset freezes, even before any merits ruling.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full design patent family around USD929510 and USD916211, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and surface competing design registrations in adjacent wellness device categories. For R&D teams designing facial fitness products, Eureka’s claim landscape tools help steer product development away from ornamental overlap — reducing the risk of being named on a future Schedule A complaint before you have the chance to respond.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0929510S to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar design patent Schedule A enforcement cases — facial & wellness devices

Other N.D. Illinois Schedule A design patent cases involving consumer wellness and facial fitness devices — same enforcement model, comparable platform targets.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Maryam Bakhtiyari patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern case history, Maryam Bakhtiyari’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Comparable Schedule A verdictsN.D. Illinois design patent filingsAmazon counterfeit enforcement outcomesFacial device IP dispute history
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the facial exercise device IP landscape

Schedule A default judgments move fast and hit hard — here is what IP teams and product sellers should take away.

Design patents are potent weapons against e-commerce counterfeiting

Bakhtiyari’s use of a design patent — rather than a utility patent — to pursue online counterfeiters is increasingly common. Design patents are faster to obtain, simpler to assert in default proceedings, and directly enforceable against lookalike products. Any company sourcing or reselling facial fitness or exercise accessories should audit for design patent exposure before listing on major platforms.

Asset freezes begin before judgment — sellers bear immediate financial risk

The court entered a preliminary injunction and asset freeze before default judgment was even granted. Payment processors including PayPal, Amazon Pay, and Alipay were ordered to hold defendant funds. This pre-judgment freeze is a defining feature of Schedule A practice and means counterfeit sellers can lose platform access and liquidity within weeks of a complaint being filed.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock design patent enforcement insights specific to the facial exercise device sector and N.D. Illinois Schedule A district court practice.
Platform account riskFTO priority rankingDocket watch strategy
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Bakhtiyari v Partnerships — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Monitor design patent enforcement risk across e-commerce platforms

This case shows how quickly a design patent holder can obtain platform-wide injunctions and asset freezes. Run an FTO on USD929510 and track new Schedule A filings in N.D. Illinois that could affect your facial device or consumer wellness product line.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.