Hongda v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment & Permanent Injunction in 195 Days
Changsha Hongda Network Technology Co., Ltd. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous online marketplace sellers for infringing design patent USD1026446S. The defendants never appeared, triggering a default judgment that includes a permanent injunction across major platforms — Amazon, Temu, AliExpress, Wish, and DHgate — and disgorgement of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, all resolved within 195 days.
Design Patent Default Judgment Targets Anonymous Marketplace Sellers
On August 7, 2024, Changsha Hongda Network Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese network technology company and holder of U.S. design patent USD1026446S (application no. US29/908330), filed an infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against an anonymous group of defendants identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — a common plaintiff-side tactic used to pursue multiple e-commerce counterfeiters simultaneously under a single case number.
The defendants failed to appear or defend, and on February 18, 2025, Judge John F. Kness entered a default judgment ordering a permanent injunction against all defaulting defendants. The order reached beyond the defendants themselves to bind third-party online marketplace providers — including Amazon, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish.com, Temu, and DHgate — requiring them to disable seller accounts and freeze associated financial accounts within seven days. Profits were awarded to Hongda under 35 U.S.C. § 289, and restrained funds were directed to be released to the plaintiff as partial satisfaction of damages.
The 195-day timeline from filing to closed judgment is consistent with Schedule A default judgment practice, where absent defendants accelerate resolution. The breadth of the injunction — spanning multiple global platforms and payment processors including PayPal, Alipay, and Amazon Pay — suggests Hongda pursued a coordinated enforcement strategy. What remains unknown from the public record is the aggregate dollar value of profits awarded per defendant and whether any defendants subsequently sought to vacate the default.
Filing to Injunction Granted in 195 days
195-day resolution — faster than the median N.D. Ill. IP default judgment
Default judgment granted: injunction, profits disgorgement, and account seizure
Default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 triggers full relief
When defendants fail to appear or respond, a plaintiff may seek default judgment under Rule 55. Once entered, the court treats the well-pleaded allegations as admitted and may award the full relief sought. Here, Judge Kness granted a permanent injunction and profit disgorgement under 35 U.S.C. § 289 — the design patent statute that allows recovery of the infringer’s total profits from sale of the infringing article, without apportionment.
Rule 55 default + § 289 profitsHongda secures injunction and frozen funds across six platforms
The order is highly favourable to Hongda. Third-party providers — Amazon, Alibaba, AliExpress, Temu, Wish, and DHgate — are ordered to deactivate the defendants’ seller accounts and freeze associated funds within seven days. Payment processors including PayPal, Alipay, and Amazon Pay must release restrained funds to Hongda within 14 days. Hongda retains ongoing authority to commence supplemental proceedings under Rule 69 until full recovery.
Full injunctive + monetary reliefAbsent defendants face permanent market exclusion and asset seizure
Defaulting defendants are permanently enjoined from selling, distributing, or advertising any product bearing the Hongda design patent on any platform. Their online store accounts have been disabled and their financial accounts frozen and transferred to the plaintiff. While defendants may petition to vacate a default judgment under Rule 60(b), the window is narrow and the standard demanding — particularly where notice was properly served via email per the court’s order.
Permanent injunction + account freezeMulti-platform enforcement raises the cost of design patent infringement
This ruling illustrates the operational leverage of Schedule A design patent litigation: a single filing can result in simultaneous enforcement across Amazon, AliExpress, Temu, Wish, and DHgate, with payment processors compelled to act within days. For sellers operating across multiple marketplaces, the risk extends beyond a single platform delisting. The 35 U.S.C. § 289 total profits standard — with no requirement for apportionment — amplifies financial exposure well beyond typical damages calculations.
Cross-platform enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Changsha Hongda Network Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese network technology company — holder of design patent USD1026446SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers operating across Amazon, AliExpress, Temu, Wish, and DHgateSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Depeng Bi | Attorney | Counsel for Changsha Hongda Network Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Konrad Val Sherinian | Attorney | Counsel for Changsha Hongda Network Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC | Law Firm | Representing Changsha Hongda Network Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John F. Kness | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order is unusually broad in operational scope. By binding named third-party platforms — Amazon, AliExpress, Alibaba, Temu, Wish, DHgate — and payment processors directly, the court’s order functions as a de facto marketplace-wide exclusion order without requiring individual enforcement actions per platform. The § 289 profits award, calculated per defendant per the referenced table, reflects the court’s acceptance of Hongda’s damages evidence in the absence of any adversarial challenge. The ongoing Rule 69 supplemental proceeding authority signals that Hongda views this judgment as an enforcement framework, not a final resolution.
USD1026446S — Hongda ornamental product design patent
USD1026446S (filed under application number US29/908330) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a Hongda product. U.S. design patents, granted under 35 U.S.C. § 171, cover the non-functional aesthetic aspects of an article of manufacture and are enforceable for 15 years from grant. Unlike utility patents, the scope of a design patent is defined entirely by its drawings, meaning infringement is assessed by whether an ordinary observer would confuse the accused product’s appearance with the patented design.
For a Chinese technology company like Changsha Hongda, holding a U.S. design patent on a product actively sold through global e-commerce channels is strategically valuable: it provides a jurisdictional hook in U.S. federal courts to pursue anonymous marketplace sellers, regardless of where those sellers are incorporated. The breadth of the injunction in this case — covering Amazon, Temu, AliExpress, Wish, DHgate, and associated payment processors — demonstrates the enforcement leverage a U.S. design patent can provide against the fragmented, pseudonymous seller ecosystem that characterises cross-border e-commerce.
Should you run an FTO against USD1026446S before listing on U.S. marketplaces?
Any product team or brand launching consumer goods on Amazon, AliExpress, Temu, Wish, or DHgate that bears aesthetic similarity to Hongda’s patented design faces a measurable litigation risk. This case demonstrates that Hongda is an active enforcer: it obtained a permanent injunction, platform-wide account disablement, and asset freezes within 195 days of filing. Design patent FTO is particularly critical here because § 289’s total-profits standard means damages are not limited to the design’s contribution to overall product value.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental design claims of USD1026446S against your product’s visual footprint, flagging overlap risk before you go to market. Eureka can also surface the full Schedule A litigation history associated with Hongda, identify related design patent families, and monitor for new filings — giving your product and legal teams an early warning system before a platform delisting or asset freeze becomes the first notice you receive.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1026446S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois
Browse related design patent infringement actions against anonymous e-commerce sellers litigated in the Northern District of Illinois using the Schedule A multi-defendant format.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent enforcement landscape
This default judgment demonstrates how Chinese IP holders are deploying U.S. courts to enforce design patents against anonymous marketplace sellers at scale.
Schedule A litigation is a scalable enforcement tool — not a one-off
Filing against ‘Schedule A’ defendants allows a single plaintiff to target dozens of anonymous sellers in one action. When defendants default, courts regularly grant sweeping injunctive relief. IP counsel advising e-commerce brands or marketplace sellers should treat this docket type as a high-velocity threat with limited procedural warning.
35 U.S.C. § 289 total profits: no apportionment amplifies damages exposure
Unlike utility patent damages, design patent infringement under § 289 permits recovery of the infringer’s total profits from sales of the infringing article — with no requirement to apportion to the patented design element. For high-volume marketplace sellers, this creates significant financial exposure that cannot be mitigated by product complexity arguments.
Changsha v Partnerships — key questions answered
The court entered a default judgment in favour of Changsha Hongda on February 18, 2025. Judge John F. Kness granted a permanent injunction against all defaulting defendants and ordered disgorgement of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Third-party platforms including Amazon, Temu, AliExpress, and DHgate were ordered to disable seller accounts, and payment processors including PayPal and Alipay were ordered to release frozen funds to Hongda within 14 days.
USD1026446S (application no. US29/908330) is a U.S. design patent held by Changsha Hongda Network Technology Co., Ltd. It protects the ornamental appearance of a Hongda consumer product. U.S. design patents protect the non-functional visual characteristics of an article, and infringement is assessed by whether an ordinary observer would confuse the accused article’s appearance with the patented design’s drawings.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent holder can recover the infringer’s total profits from sales of any article incorporating the patented design — with no requirement to apportion damages to the design element’s contribution to the product’s value. This distinguishes design patent damages from utility patent reasonable royalty or lost profits analysis, and can significantly amplify financial exposure for high-volume marketplace sellers.
Federal courts have authority to bind third parties who have actual notice of an injunction order and who are in active concert with the enjoined parties, or who provide services enabling the infringement. In Schedule A litigation, courts routinely name e-commerce platforms and payment processors as third-party providers required to disable accounts and freeze funds within days of receiving the order, allowing plaintiffs to enforce across multiple marketplaces simultaneously without separate proceedings.
Schedule A litigation is a plaintiff-side tactic where a single complaint is filed against dozens or hundreds of anonymous online sellers identified by seller alias rather than legal name, with the full list appended as a sealed schedule. It is widely used in the Northern District of Illinois to pursue coordinated enforcement against e-commerce counterfeiters. When defendants fail to appear — as occurred here — the plaintiff can obtain sweeping default judgments covering all listed sellers in a single court order.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.