Broadway Pine Brands v. Bonjin-US: $1.8M Default Judgment & Permanent Injunction
Broadway Pine Brands, LLC sued eleven defendants — led by Bonjin-US — in the Western District of Pennsylvania for infringing US11154128B2, a patent covering a storage container with an integrated mat. The case closed 169 days after filing with a default judgment of $1,800,000 and a court-ordered permanent injunction against all defendants.
Multi-defendant default judgment in a storage container IP dispute
Broadway Pine Brands, LLC filed suit on 15 November 2022 in the Western District of Pennsylvania against eleven defendants, including Bonjin-US, Aay Homyyaya, Bxae, Goodwish, RV Mustang Volleyball, Samplife, Toocust, Volunt, Yanet Collective, Yzy-direct, and REBUSHAR LLC. The plaintiff asserted US11154128B2, which covers a storage container with an integrated mat, alleging infringement by the defendants' products. Plaintiff was represented by Ference & Associates LLC; no defendant counsel appears on the record.
The case was terminated on 3 May 2023 on the basis of a judgment on the merits for the plaintiff. The court granted both the plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. 57) and Motion for Permanent Injunction (Dkt. 58), entering judgment against all defendants named in Schedule 'A' in the amount of $1,800,000. Each defaulting defendant and all persons acting in concert with them are permanently restrained and enjoined as specified in the order. The court retained jurisdiction to construe and enforce the judgment and permanent injunction.
The 169-day resolution timeline is consistent with a proceeding in which no defendant appeared or contested the claims — default judgment proceedings typically move faster than contested litigation. The absence of any defendant counsel of record across all eleven defendants suggests none engaged with the suit. What drove the $1,800,000 damages figure — whether based on statutory damages, lost profits, or another measure — is not detailed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 169 days
169 days from filing to judgment — consistent with uncontested default proceedings
US11154128B2 — Storage container with an integrated mat
Any manufacturer, importer, or online seller of storage containers that incorporate a built-in or integrated mat feature should treat US11154128B2 as a live enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is actively monitoring the market and will pursue multi-defendant actions without negotiation. A formal freedom-to-operate analysis is warranted before launching or continuing to sell products in this category.
Official order — verbatim text
The order granted both the default judgment motion and the permanent injunction motion simultaneously, entering a single $1,800,000 judgment against all Schedule A defendants. The court's retention of jurisdiction to construe and enforce the judgment is a standard but significant provision in multi-defendant default proceedings — it enables post-judgment enforcement without fresh litigation. No merits defence was litigated; the judgment rests on uncontested allegations.
Default judgment for plaintiff: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: court rules without defendant participation
A default judgment is entered when defendants fail to appear or otherwise respond to a complaint. Here, the court accepted the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations as admitted and granted both the damages motion and the permanent injunction motion. The court explicitly retained jurisdiction to construe and enforce the judgment — a provision that strengthens plaintiff's ability to pursue post-judgment compliance.
Uncontested merits rulingBroadway Pine Brands secures $1.8M and permanent injunction
The plaintiff achieved the full relief sought: a $1,800,000 monetary judgment and a permanent injunction barring all defendants, their affiliates, and anyone acting in concert from the enjoined conduct. The court ordered the plaintiff's $5,000 bond released, confirming the injunction is now in effect without further condition. The retained jurisdiction clause gives Broadway Pine Brands an enforcement mechanism if defendants violate the order.
Full relief grantedAll eleven defendants bound by $1.8M judgment and injunction
Each of the eleven named defendants — and all persons in active concert with them — is subject to both the monetary judgment and the permanent injunction. None of the defendants appear to have retained counsel or contested the action. Defendants may seek to vacate a default judgment by demonstrating excusable neglect or lack of proper service, but no such motion appears in the available record. The alternative service order also governs how plaintiff must serve this order on the defaulting defendants.
No appearance; full exposureInjunction enforcement signals active IP monitoring in e-commerce
This outcome is consistent with a pattern of IP enforcement actions targeting multiple small e-commerce sellers simultaneously via Schedule A complaints. The permanent injunction, if enforced, can be directed at third-party marketplaces and payment processors — not just the named defendants. For sellers of storage container products in this category, the ruling signals that US11154128B2 is being actively enforced and that non-appearance is not a viable commercial strategy.
E-commerce IP enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Broadway Pine Brands, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bonjin-US | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Aay Homyyaya | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Bxae | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Goodwish | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | RV Mustang Volleyball | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samplife | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Toocust | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Volunt | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Yanet Collective | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Yzy-direct | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | REBUSHAR LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Samuel Malkin | Attorney | Counsel for Broadway Pine Brands, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stanley D. Ference , III | Attorney | Counsel for Broadway Pine Brands, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ference & Associates LLC | Law Firm | Representing Broadway Pine Brands, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan | Judge | Pennsylvania Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the storage container & household goods IP space
Forward-looking patent intelligence on Broadway Pine Brands' portfolio, competitor filings, and innovation white space in storage containers with integrated accessories.
Broadway Pine Brands' filing activity beyond US11154128B2
US11154128B2 may not be Broadway Pine Brands' only asset in the storage container space. Understanding whether the company holds continuation, divisional, or related applications helps competitors and sellers assess the full scope of their enforcement exposure and anticipate future assertion campaigns.
Portfolio breadth signalFiling trends in integrated storage container accessories
The storage container with integrated mat category is attracting IP activity. Mapping filing trends in this space — including related functional integrations like built-in liners, cushioned bases, and modular trays — reveals which players are building defensive or offensive patent positions and where design-around space may exist.
Market filing activityDo the defendant sellers hold any defensive IP?
None of the eleven defendants — including Bonjin-US, Samplife, Toocust, and REBUSHAR LLC — appear to have mounted a patent-based defence. Assessing whether any of these entities or their upstream manufacturers hold relevant IP in the storage accessory space informs the broader competitive IP picture for e-commerce sellers in this category.
Defensive IP gapAdjacent innovation space near integrated storage mat patents
Design-around opportunities near US11154128B2 may exist in structural variations — for example, removable versus permanently integrated mats, multi-compartment designs, or material-specific claims. Identifying unclaimed or lightly filed adjacent territory enables product teams to innovate freely while avoiding the asserted patent's claim perimeter.
Design-around white spaceSimilar patent enforcement cases: storage goods & Schedule A actions
Explore comparable multi-defendant Schedule A patent infringement cases in consumer storage goods before W.D. Pa. and other district courts.
What this case signals for the consumer storage goods IP landscape
A multi-defendant default win reinforces the plaintiff's enforcement posture and raises the risk profile for competing e-commerce sellers.
Schedule A enforcement is now a proven playbook for consumer goods IP
Filing against multiple anonymous or pseudonymous e-commerce sellers in a single action — the Schedule A model — has proven highly effective here. Broadway Pine Brands secured full relief in under six months with no defendant opposition. Sellers in the storage accessory category should audit their product listings against US11154128B2.
Permanent injunction with retained jurisdiction extends plaintiff's leverage
The court's decision to retain jurisdiction means Broadway Pine Brands can return for contempt proceedings without filing a new case. This amplifies the deterrent effect of the ruling and represents a meaningful enforcement tool against any marketplace re-listing by the enjoined parties or their affiliates.
Broadway v Bonjin-US — key questions answered
The Western District of Pennsylvania entered a default judgment in favour of Broadway Pine Brands, LLC against all eleven defendants for $1,800,000, together with a permanent injunction. The case closed on 3 May 2023, 169 days after filing, with no defendant appearing or contesting the claims.
The plaintiff asserted US11154128B2 (application no. US16/528810), covering a storage container with an integrated mat. The patent is held by Broadway Pine Brands, LLC and was the sole patent asserted in this infringement action.
The court's order permanently restrains and enjoins each defaulting defendant, its officers, directors, employees, agents, subsidiaries, distributors, and all persons in active concert with any defaulting defendant who have notice of the order. The court retained jurisdiction to construe and enforce the judgment and permanent injunction.
The specific methodology used to calculate the $1,800,000 damages award — whether statutory damages, lost profits, reasonable royalty, or another measure — is not disclosed in the available record. The award was entered by default, meaning no defendant contested the figure.
A Schedule A complaint names multiple defendants — often anonymous or pseudonymous online sellers — in a single filing, identified on a schedule attached to the complaint. Broadway Pine Brands used this approach against eleven defendants simultaneously. It is a common enforcement strategy in e-commerce IP cases, allowing plaintiffs to obtain injunctions and judgments efficiently when defendants do not appear.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.