CAO Group v. Schedule A Defendants: $1.52M Default Judgment Per Defendant in Teeth Whitening Patent Dispute
CAO Group, Inc. secured a sweeping default judgment against 31 online marketplace sellers — including Amazon, eBay, and Walmart storefront operators — accused of infringing three patents covering its Sheer White! teeth whitening strips. The Illinois Northern District Court awarded $1,518,750 per defaulting defendant, including treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, plus permanent injunctions and asset freezes across major payment platforms.
Mass marketplace enforcement: CAO Group’s multi-defendant teeth whitening patent blitz
On February 12, 2024, CAO Group, Inc., a dental products company and holder of three U.S. patents covering its Sheer White! teeth whitening strip technology (US10603259B2, US10646419B2, and US11219582B2), filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against a ‘Schedule A’ roster of online marketplace sellers. The defendant list included named entities such as Puresell, ACU, BLUE, DEEPSOUND, Fairywill, and dozens of others operating storefronts on Amazon, eBay, and Walmart.
The case closed on August 6, 2025 via default judgment — the court’s most decisive plaintiff-side outcome, triggered when defendants failed to appear or respond. Judge Thomas M. Durkin granted CAO Group’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment, awarding $500,000 in reasonable royalty damages per defendant, $6,250 in expected transaction costs per defendant, and then trebling both figures under 35 U.S.C. § 284 to reach $1,518,750 per defaulting defendant. Permanent injunctions and asset-freeze orders were simultaneously issued against third-party payment processors.
The 541-day resolution suggests the litigation proceeded without meaningful defendant opposition — consistent with the ‘Schedule A’ enforcement model where many overseas e-commerce sellers choose non-appearance over costly U.S. litigation. What remains unknown from the public record is the aggregate amount actually recovered from frozen accounts across 31 defendants, and whether any defendants subsequently moved to vacate the default. The inclusion of treble damages signals the court accepted CAO Group’s characterisation of the infringement as wilful.
Filing to Default Judgment in 541 days
541 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the average N.D. Ill. patent case at trial
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: plaintiff wins without a merits contest
A default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond. The court accepts the well-pleaded allegations as true. Here, 31 defendants were deemed in default, meaning CAO Group’s patent infringement allegations were uncontested on the record. The judgment carries full legal weight — injunctions, damages, and asset freezes — without any finding based on adversarial evidence.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 defaultCAO Group secures $1.52M per defendant plus treble damages
CAO Group obtained the maximum available relief: permanent injunctions blocking future sales, a reasonable royalty base of $500,000 per defendant, trebling of all damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and immediate asset freezes across Amazon Pay, eBay, PayPal, Payoneer, and Walmart. The court also authorised supplemental proceedings to pursue any remaining unpaid amounts. The three asserted patents survive fully intact and enforceable.
Full injunctive + monetary relief31 sellers face $1.52M judgments and permanent marketplace bans
Each of the 31 defaulting defendants — many operating as small e-commerce storefronts — faces a $1,518,750 money judgment, permanent injunction from selling any infringing product, and seizure of funds already held by third-party payment platforms. Defendants retain the right to move to vacate the default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) if they can show good cause, but the bar is high and the timeline is limited. Account suspension on major marketplaces is immediate.
Asset freeze + permanent injunctionChilling effect on grey-market teeth whitening sellers across U.S. platforms
This outcome reinforces the N.D. Ill. ‘Schedule A’ enforcement model as an effective deterrent against mass online infringement of consumer dental products. Patent holders can obtain rapid TROs, asset freezes, and default judgments against non-appearing sellers. Third-party platforms are now under court order to act within 7–14 days of notice. Any seller of teeth whitening strips on Amazon, eBay, or Walmart faces elevated risk if their product overlaps with CAO Group’s three asserted patents.
Schedule A enforcement modelFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CAO Group, Inc. | Company | Dental products company — holder of US10603259B2, US10646419B2, and US11219582B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A | Company | 31 named online marketplace sellers operating storefronts on Amazon, eBay, and WalmartSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Puresell | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | ACU | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | BLUE | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | DEEPSOUND | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Gaoxi E -commerce Co. Ltd | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Hest Store | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others too numerous to list: Moose Store, GD-SSS, originalsite, Shenzhen Old Tree Network Technology Co., Ltd, IMOSTY Whitening US, allwys, eyalgavr_16, iLumes, ANCRV, WP for Teeth, beapoint, Hahasong, Maxlinking, davidson-75, Dentalgoods2015, Ms.Dear, Fairywill, perficientworksltd, Fashion Style US, newage-store, Worldwise Enshi Trading, OETU Shop, lingduoshop, wendydy, hungeg, Na Li Wang, OETU Health, fairywill_global, amormed1, Shenzhen beauty network technology Co., LTD, SQLEA Shop, Wmkox8yii, ori.or0, Guangzhou Dingbao E-commerce Co., LTD, Carbonline, koradado_0, 3C Boutiques, homefromgoods, cleanhealthc, haiyi_mall, BYS Technology, tstarlight, Trayknick, Shenzhen Zhongxinda Technology development Co., LTD, zhuhai jiashu dianzishangwu youxiangongsi d/b/a GD-Whitening, Whitening Teeth US | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Professional Seller Store | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Waving Palms US | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | YiFudd | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Adam Campbell | Attorney | Counsel for CAO Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward L. Bishop | Attorney | Counsel for CAO Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas S. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for CAO Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sameeul Haque | Attorney | Counsel for CAO Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing CAO Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing CAO Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Thomas M. Durkin | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order is comprehensive in scope: it addresses injunctive relief, reasonable royalty damages, transaction cost recovery, treble damages, asset freezes, and third-party platform obligations in a single instrument. The trebling under 35 U.S.C. § 284 — typically reserved for wilful infringement — is notable given the absence of adversarial proceedings; the court appears to have accepted CAO Group’s pleadings as sufficient to support enhanced damages. The $1,518,750 per-defendant figure is a judgment amount, not a negotiated settlement, and actual recovery will depend on the assets frozen at the time of order.
US10603259B2, US10646419B2 & US11219582B2 — Sheer White! teeth whitening strip technology
The three asserted patents — US10603259B2 (App. No. 15/488293), US10646419B2 (App. No. 15/627906), and US11219582B2 (App. No. 16/784582) — collectively protect CAO Group’s Sheer White! teeth whitening strip technology. The sequential application numbers suggest a deliberate patent family strategy, with each subsequent filing building on or extending claim coverage from the prior application. The technology domain covers flexible polymeric strip substrates, whitening agent formulations, and application methods intended for over-the-counter consumer use.
Strategically, a three-patent cluster in the OTC teeth whitening strip space creates significant barriers for competing product designs. Any seller seeking to design around one patent must navigate the remaining two, which likely cover complementary aspects of the product — composition, form factor, and method of use. The N.D. Ill. enforcement history here, combined with the default judgment outcome, signals that CAO Group is actively monitoring marketplace infringement and prepared to litigate aggressively. Competitors and private-label manufacturers entering the whitening strip category should treat this portfolio as a live enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO against US10603259B2, US10646419B2, and US11219582B2?
Any company developing, sourcing, or selling flexible teeth whitening strips for the U.S. market — including OTC brands, white-label manufacturers, dental distributors, and Amazon marketplace sellers — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against CAO Group’s three-patent cluster before launch or listing. The default judgment in this case confirms active enforcement, and the asset-freeze mechanism means potential exposure begins at the moment of sale, not judgment.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map your product’s technical features against the claim sets of US10603259B2, US10646419B2, and US11219582B2, flag prosecution history estoppel that may limit claim scope, and identify prior art that could support an IPR petition if infringement risk is identified. For product teams already selling in this category, an expedited claim-by-claim analysis is the fastest way to quantify exposure before a TRO application lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10603259B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent enforcement cases in dental & consumer health products
Cases filed in N.D. Ill. involving multi-defendant Schedule A enforcement of consumer dental and oral care product patents — the same court and enforcement model as this action.
What this case signals for the dental product IP enforcement landscape
CAO Group’s default judgment confirms the N.D. Ill. Schedule A model as a scalable tool for consumer dental patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers.
Schedule A litigation is an efficient enforcement lever for consumer product patents
By bundling 31 defendants into a single action, CAO Group dramatically reduced per-defendant litigation cost while obtaining maximum-value default judgments. Patent holders with consumer product IP facing mass online infringement should evaluate whether their portfolio supports this approach — particularly where defendants are overseas e-commerce operators unlikely to mount a U.S. defence.
Treble damages signal wilfulness finding — raises risk profile for repeat sellers
The court’s award of treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 signals acceptance of a wilful infringement theory. Any seller who received prior notice of CAO Group’s patents — through a cease-and-desist, a prior TRO, or marketplace notification — faces a significantly elevated damages exposure if they continue selling competing teeth whitening strips on U.S. platforms.
CAO v Individuals — key questions answered
The court awarded $1,518,750 per defaulting defendant. This comprises a $500,000 reasonable royalty, $6,250 in expected transaction costs (per defendant, across 31 defendants), and trebling of both figures under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for a total of $1,518,750 per defendant. The aggregate maximum exposure across all 31 defendants exceeds $47 million.
CAO Group asserted three U.S. patents: US10603259B2 (App. No. 15/488293), US10646419B2 (App. No. 15/627906), and US11219582B2 (App. No. 16/784582). All three relate to the Sheer White! teeth whitening strip product technology and form a sequential patent family covering the product’s composition, form factor, and application methods.
Treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 are typically associated with wilful infringement. In a default judgment context, the court accepted CAO Group’s uncontested pleadings as sufficient to support enhanced damages. The defendants’ failure to appear meant no rebuttal evidence was presented. The award suggests the court found the infringement characterisation — including any wilfulness theory pleaded by CAO Group — to be adequately supported on the existing record.
Defaulting defendants may move to vacate the default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), but must demonstrate good cause, a meritorious defence, and lack of culpable conduct for the default. The standard is demanding. Defendants may also appeal the judgment to the Seventh Circuit, though the window for doing so is strictly time-limited from the date of entry. The public record does not indicate any such motions have been filed.
The ‘Schedule A’ model allows a patent holder to join multiple online marketplace sellers as defendants in a single action by listing them on a schedule attached to the complaint — often to preserve anonymity and prevent asset dissipation before TRO orders issue. The N.D. Ill. is a favoured venue for this model. Plaintiffs typically obtain ex parte TROs and asset freezes early in the case, then proceed to default judgment if defendants fail to appear. This case is a textbook example of that strategy.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.