Book a demo

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

Try now
Bling Mirror LLC v. Schedule A Defendants — Mirror Patent Infringement | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:24-cv-13409
FiledDec 2024
ClosedMar 2025
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
77days
Resolved in 77 days — significantly faster than the typical district court patent case average of 2–3 years
Patents asserted
1
US10258174B2 — full-length light-up bling mirror, illuminated consumer mirror technology
Outcome
Default Judgment
Plaintiff wins on default; defendant failed to appear; all complaint allegations deemed admitted
Cost ruling
$8,272.50
Attorney fees awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285; case declared exceptional by the court
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:24-cv-13409
CourtIllinois Northern
JudgeVirginia M. Kendall
FiledDecember 31, 2024
ClosedMarch 18, 2025
Duration77 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 77 days

Resolved in 77 days — significantly faster than the typical district court patent case average of 2–3 years

Case timeline: Complaint filed DEC 31 2024, FEB–MAR — 77 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Bling Mirror LLC v The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. DEC 31 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings MAR 18 2025 Default Judgment 77 DAYS TOTAL
Default judgment

Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

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 applied
Patent holder outcome

Bling 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: $105,612.27
Defendant outcome

Non-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 issued
Commercial implications

Schedule 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 risk
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:24-cv-13409 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffBling Mirror LLCCompanyConsumer mirror IP holder — owner of US10258174B2 covering light-up bling mirror designSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule ACompanyAnonymous e-commerce sellers operating storefronts on Amazon, eBay, Temu, and WalmartSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBenjamin Adam CampbellAttorneyCounsel for Bling Mirror LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselEdward L. BishopAttorneyCounsel for Bling Mirror LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselNicholas S. LeeAttorneyCounsel for Bling Mirror LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSameeul HaqueAttorneyCounsel for Bling Mirror LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmBishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd.Law FirmRepresenting Bling Mirror LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmDickinson Wright PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Bling Mirror LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Virginia M. KendallJudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“This action having been commenced by Plaintiff Bling Mirror LLC (“Plaintiff”) against the defendants identified on Schedule A, and using the 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 remaining defendant identified on Schedule A attached hereto which has not yet been dismissed from this case (“Defaulting Defendant”); This Court having entered a preliminary injunction; Plaintiff having properly completed service of process on Defaulting Defendant, the combination of providing notice via e-mail, along with any notice that Defaulting Defendant received from online marketplaces and payment processors, being notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise Defaulting Defendant of the pendency of the action and affording them the opportunity to answer and present their objections; and Case: 1:24-cv-13409 Document #: 46 Filed: 03/18/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:945 2 The Defaulting Defendant not having answered or appeared in any way, and the time for answering has expired, so that the allegations of the Complaint are uncontroverted and are deemed admitted; This Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over Defaulting Defendant because Defaulting Defendant directly targets their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Plaintiff has provided a basis to conclude that Defaulting Defendant has 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 that infringe upon Plaintiff’s federally registered patents, as claimed in U.S. Patent No. 10,258,174 B2 (“Plaintiff’s Patent”) to residents of Illinois. In this case, Plaintiff has presented screenshot evidence that the Defendant ecommerce 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 that infringe Plaintiff’s Patents. See Schedule A and Exhibit 2 to the Verified Complaint, Docket Nos. [5-1] and [5-3], which includes links and product ID numbers for the subject storefronts and infringing products and screenshot evidence confirming that each Defendant e-commerce store does stand ready, willing and able to ship its infringing products to customers in Illinois; see also Exhibit 6 to the Verified Amended Complaint, Docket No. [5- 4], which contains exemplary claim charts outlining how Unauthorized Products infringe at least Claim 1 of each of Plaintiff’s Patents. This Court further finds that Defaulting Defendant is liable for willful patent infringement on its patent infringement claim (Count I) in Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint. Case: 1:24-cv-13409 Document #: 46 Filed: 03/18/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:946 3 Accordingly, this Court orders that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED as follows, that Defaulting Defendant is deemed in default, and that this Default Judgment is entered against Defaulting Defendant. This Court further orders that: 1. Defaulting Defendant, its 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. Making, using offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for subsequent sale any products that infringe upon Plaintiff’s Patent or use of any product that infringes upon Plaintiff’s Patent 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 Plaintiff’s 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 that is protected under Plaintiff’s Patent; c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defaulting Defendant’s products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff and its rights in Plaintiff’s Patent; and d. manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, products or Case: 1:24-cv-13409 Document #: 46 Filed: 03/18/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:947 4 inventory not manufactured by or for Plaintiff, nor authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered for sale, and which embody any of the Claims of Plaintiff’s Patent. 2. Defaulting Defendant and any third party with actual notice of this Order who is providing services for the Defaulting Defendant, or in connection with any of the Defaulting Defendant’s Online Marketplaces, including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), eBay, Inc. (“eBay”), WhaleCo, Inc., (“Temu”), and Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”), (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 Defendant could continue to sell goods that infringe upon Plaintiff’s Patent; and b. operating and/or hosting websites that are involved with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product infringing Plaintiff’s Patent or any reproductions, copies or colorable imitations thereof that is not a genuine Plaintiff product or not authorized by Plaintiff to utilize the inventions claimed in Plaintiff’s Patent. 3. Upon Plaintiff’s request, those with notice of this Order, including the Third-Party Providers as defined in Paragraph 2, shall within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of such notice, disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with Defaulting Defendant in connection with the sale of infringing goods using the inventions claimed in Plaintiff’s Patent. Case: 1:24-cv-13409 Document #: 46 Filed: 03/18/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:948 5 4. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Plaintiff is awarded damages equal to a reasonable royalty from Defaulting Defendant in the amount of $27,446.59. 5. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Plaintiff is awarded expected transaction costs associated with the hypothetical negotiations and drafting of royalty and licensing agreements between it and the Defaulting Defendant listed below. Plaintiff is awarded $5,000 in expected transaction costs, from Defaulting Defendant. 6. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Defaulting Defendant is subject to treble damages and Plaintiff is awarded three times the amount awarded in both paragraphs 4 and 5 for a total of $97,339.77. 7. Additionally, this case is held exceptional, and Plaintiff is awarded its reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. This Court finds that an award of $8,272.50 in attorneys’ fees is reasonable, and therefore awards Plaintiff $8,272.50 in attorneys’ fees from the Defaulting Defendant. 8. As a result of the damages awarded to Plaintiff in paragraphs 4 through 7 of this Order, the total awarded to the Plaintiff is $105,612.27 USD from Defaulting Defendant. 9. Any Third-Party Providers holding funds for Defaulting Defendant, including Amazon, eBay, PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”), Payoneer Global, Inc. (“Payoneer”), Temu, and Walmart, shall, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order, permanently restrain and enjoin any accounts connected to Defaulting Defendant or the Defendant Internet Stores from transferring or disposing of any funds (up to the total damages and attorneys’ fees awarded in Paragraph 4 through 8 above) or other of Defaulting Defendant’s assets. 10. All monies (up to the total damages and attorneys’ fees awarded in Paragraph 4 through 8 above) currently restrained in Defaulting Defendant’s financial accounts, including monies Case: 1:24-cv-13409 Document #: 46 Filed: 03/18/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:949 6 held by Third-Party Providers such as Amazon, eBay, PayPal, Payoneer, Temu, and Walmart, are hereby released to Plaintiff as partial payment of the above-identified damages, and Third Party Providers, including Amazon, eBay, PayPal, Payoneer, Temu, and Walmart, are ordered to release to Plaintiff the amounts from Defaulting Defendant’s financial accounts within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of this Order. 11. Until Plaintiff has recovered full payment of monies owed to it by Defaulting Defendant, Plaintiff shall have the ongoing authority to commence supplemental proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69. 12. In the event that Plaintiff identifies any additional online marketplace accounts or financial accounts owned by Defaulting Defendant, Plaintiff may send notice of any supplemental proceeding, including a citation to discover assets, to Defaulting Defendant by e-mail at the e-mail addresses identified in Exhibit 2 to Verified Complaint and any e-mail addresses provided for Defaulting Defendant by third parties. 13. The ten-thousand dollar ($10,000.00) surety bond posted by Plaintiff is hereby released to Plaintiff or its counsel, Bishop & Diehl, Ltd. 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 1:24-cv-13409, Illinois Northern District Court

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.

PACER case 1:24-cv-13409 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US10258174B2 — full-length light-up bling mirror technology

Publication No.US10258174B2
Application No.US16/008182
Patent details
ProductFull-length illuminated bling mirror with integrated lighting system
Cited in actionDecember 31, 2024

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.

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

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.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10258174B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Bling Mirror LLC patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern case history, Bling Mirror LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Schedule A mirror casesN.D. Ill. default judgmentsLED mirror patent suitsAmazon seller IP actions
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What 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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock claim-level FTO analysis and enforcement pattern data for US10258174B2 in the Northern District of Illinois consumer product patent landscape.
Claim 1 scope analysisFuture enforcement targetsFTO risk by product type
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Bling v Individuals — key questions answered

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

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.

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.