Bling Mirror LLC v. Schedule A Defendants: $105,612 Default Judgment for Mirror Patent
Bling Mirror LLC filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous e-commerce sellers on Amazon, Temu, eBay, and Walmart for infringing US10258174B2, covering its full-length light-up bling mirror. The court entered a default judgment of $105,612.27 — including trebled damages for willful infringement — just 77 days after filing.
Schedule A e-commerce enforcement yields swift default judgment
On 31 December 2024, Bling Mirror LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against an anonymous group of online marketplace sellers — the so-called ‘Schedule A’ defendants — alleging willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,258,174 B2, which covers a full-length light-up bling mirror. The defendants operated storefronts across Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart, offering products that Bling Mirror alleged infringed at least Claim 1 of its patent, supported by claim charts filed with the verified complaint.
With no defendant appearing or answering, Judge Virginia M. Kendall entered a default judgment on 18 March 2025. The court found willful infringement and awarded a reasonable royalty of $27,446.59, plus $5,000 in hypothetical transaction costs, both trebled under 35 U.S.C. § 284 to $97,339.77, and a further $8,272.50 in attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — totalling $105,612.27. Third-party platforms were ordered to freeze and remit funds held in defendants’ accounts within 14 days.
The 77-day resolution is consistent with the rapid lifecycle typical of Schedule A enforcement actions, where default is the expected outcome when defendants — often overseas sellers — do not engage with U.S. proceedings. The court’s finding of exceptionality under § 285 suggests it viewed the infringement as sufficiently egregious to justify fee-shifting. What remains unknown is whether Bling Mirror has recovered or will recover the full $105,612.27 from frozen marketplace accounts, as actual collection depends on funds held at the time of the restraining order.
Filing to Default Judgment in 77 days
Resolved in 77 days — significantly faster than the typical district court patent case average of 2–3 years
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: unanswered complaints become binding admissions
When a defendant fails to appear or answer within the permitted time, the court may enter default and then default judgment. All factual allegations in the complaint are deemed admitted. Here, Judge Kendall found personal jurisdiction, willful infringement, and appropriate damages without any contested merits hearing. The judgment is legally enforceable, including against third-party payment processors holding defendant funds.
35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 285 appliedBling Mirror secures injunction, treble damages, and fee award
Bling Mirror obtained a permanent injunction barring the defaulting defendant from making, selling, or importing infringing products. The court trebled the royalty and transaction cost award due to willful infringement, yielding $97,339.77 in damages, plus $8,272.50 in attorney fees. Critically, marketplace platforms including Amazon, PayPal, Payoneer, and Walmart were ordered to freeze and release defendant funds directly to Bling Mirror within 14 days.
Total award: $105,612.27Non-appearance results in permanent injunction and asset freeze
The defaulting defendant faces a permanent injunction across all major U.S. marketplaces, frozen financial accounts at Amazon, eBay, PayPal, Payoneer, Temu, and Walmart, and a binding $105,612.27 money judgment. Bling Mirror retains authority to pursue supplemental collection proceedings under FRCP 69. Failure to appear is a common but high-risk strategy among overseas e-commerce sellers that typically results in exactly this outcome.
Permanent injunction issuedSchedule A enforcement signals continued marketplace IP risk for e-commerce sellers
This case is consistent with a growing wave of Schedule A patent enforcement actions targeting anonymous online sellers in consumer product categories. The court’s willingness to freeze marketplace funds — including via PayPal and Payoneer — and declare the case exceptional underscores real financial exposure for sellers who ignore U.S. proceedings. Product teams sourcing or reselling illuminated mirror products should treat US10258174B2 as an active enforcement risk.
Multi-platform enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bling Mirror LLC | Company | Consumer mirror IP holder — owner of US10258174B2 covering light-up bling mirror designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A | Company | Anonymous e-commerce sellers operating storefronts on Amazon, eBay, Temu, and WalmartSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Adam Campbell | Attorney | Counsel for Bling Mirror LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward L. Bishop | Attorney | Counsel for Bling Mirror LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas S. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Bling Mirror LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sameeul Haque | Attorney | Counsel for Bling Mirror LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Bling Mirror LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Bling Mirror LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Virginia M. Kendall | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment language is unambiguous: all complaint allegations are deemed admitted, willful infringement is established, and damages are trebled. The court’s invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 284 for both the royalty base and transaction cost component — each separately trebled — reflects a structured approach to willfulness damages. The § 285 exceptionality finding, though modest at $8,272.50, signals judicial endorsement of Bling Mirror’s enforcement approach and may support future fee claims in related actions against similar marketplace sellers.
US10258174B2 — full-length light-up bling mirror technology
U.S. Patent No. 10,258,174 B2, filed under application number US16/008182, covers the design and construction of a full-length light-up bling mirror — a consumer-facing illuminated mirror product. The patent’s Claim 1, as cited in the court’s claim charts, defines the specific structural and functional elements that distinguish Bling Mirror’s product from standard mirrors. The patent is registered federally and was actively enforced by Bling Mirror against multiple e-commerce storefronts simultaneously.
In the consumer electronics and home décor space, illuminated mirror products — including LED vanity mirrors, smart mirrors, and decorative lit mirrors — represent a growing product category on global e-commerce platforms. US10258174B2 gives Bling Mirror a basis to challenge any seller whose product reads on Claim 1, making it a commercially significant enforcement asset. The Schedule A litigation model means this patent may be asserted in waves against successive groups of marketplace sellers, compounding exposure for resellers and sourcing agents.
Should you run an FTO against US10258174B2?
Any company sourcing, manufacturing, or reselling full-length illuminated or light-up mirror products for the U.S. market — particularly through Amazon, Walmart, Temu, or eBay — should treat US10258174B2 as an active enforcement risk. Bling Mirror has demonstrated willingness to pursue default judgment rapidly, obtain platform-level injunctions, and freeze marketplace funds. A freedom-to-operate analysis against Claim 1 of this patent is a practical necessity before listing such products on U.S. marketplaces.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product specification against the independent and dependent claims of US10258174B2, flag design-around options, and identify the prior art landscape that could support a validity challenge if needed. Given the speed of Schedule A proceedings — 77 days from filing to final judgment here — early FTO clearance is significantly cheaper than post-judgment enforcement defence or account suspension.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10258174B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent enforcement cases in consumer mirror technology
Browse related Schedule A patent infringement actions in the Northern District of Illinois targeting e-commerce sellers of illuminated and decorative mirror products.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Full length light up bling mirror-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedBling Mirror LLC’s broader IP enforcement history
Bling Mirror LLC’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the consumer products e-commerce IP landscape
Schedule A enforcement is maturing into a reliable monetisation strategy for niche consumer product patent holders, with courts routinely granting treble damages and asset freezes.
Marketplace fund freezes are now a primary enforcement lever
Courts in the Northern District of Illinois are regularly ordering Amazon, PayPal, Payoneer, Temu, and Walmart to freeze and remit seller funds within days of a default judgment. For e-commerce sellers, this means IP risk is not abstract — it translates directly into account suspension and cash seizure before any defence can be mounted.
Willfulness findings accelerate damages in non-appearance cases
Because the defaulting defendant’s silence causes all complaint allegations to be admitted, courts routinely find willful infringement and apply the § 284 treble multiplier. Bling Mirror’s base royalty of $27,446.59 became $97,339.77 purely through this mechanism. Patent holders pursuing Schedule A strategies should document evidence of willfulness upfront to maximise award potential.
US10258174B2 claim scope and FTO risk for adjacent mirror products
The claim charts filed by Bling Mirror map infringement against Claim 1 of US10258174B2. Sellers of full-length illuminated mirrors — including LED vanity and smart mirror products — should assess whether their product configurations fall within that claim scope before listing on U.S. marketplaces, particularly Amazon and Walmart.
Exceptionality finding under § 285 raises the bar for defendants who later appear
Although the § 285 fee award here arose from a default, the court’s exceptionality finding establishes a litigation posture that Bling Mirror may cite in future enforcement actions. Competitors or resellers who do choose to contest this patent should anticipate a plaintiff willing to pursue fee-shifting as part of its standard litigation strategy.
Bling v Individuals — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment on 18 March 2025 in favour of Bling Mirror LLC. The court awarded $105,612.27 total, comprising trebled royalty and transaction cost damages of $97,339.77 and attorney fees of $8,272.50, along with a permanent injunction against the defaulting defendant across Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart.
Bling Mirror LLC asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,258,174 B2 (application number US16/008182), covering a full-length light-up bling mirror. The court’s judgment specifically finds infringement of at least Claim 1 of this patent by the defaulting defendant’s products sold through online marketplace storefronts.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, courts may award up to three times actual damages for willful patent infringement. Because the defendant defaulted and all complaint allegations were deemed admitted — including willfulness — Judge Kendall trebled both the reasonable royalty ($27,446.59) and transaction costs ($5,000), resulting in a trebled total of $97,339.77.
Judge Kendall found personal jurisdiction because the defaulting defendant operated e-commerce storefronts that targeted U.S. and Illinois consumers, offered shipping to Illinois, and sold infringing products to Illinois residents. Screenshot evidence of the storefronts’ willingness to ship to Illinois was submitted as part of the verified complaint.
The court ordered Amazon, eBay, PayPal, Payoneer, Temu, and Walmart to freeze and remit to Bling Mirror all funds held in the defaulting defendant’s accounts, up to the full $105,612.27 judgment, within 14 days. This mechanism allows patent holders to collect damages directly from marketplace payment systems without chasing defendants across jurisdictions — a key enforcement advantage in Schedule A litigation.
Selling illuminated mirror products in the US? Check your FTO first.
Schedule A enforcement moves fast — 77 days from complaint to frozen accounts in this case. Use PatSnap Eureka to assess your exposure under US10258174B2 and monitor new filings targeting illuminated and decorative mirror products.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.