DCSTAR v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Respiratory Device Patent
DCSTAR, Inc. secured a complete default judgment against anonymous online marketplace sellers infringing US11478575B1, a patent covering a respiratory tract obstruction removal device. The court issued a permanent injunction, ordered Amazon listing takedowns across 17 product URLs, and released frozen seller funds to the plaintiff — all within 144 days of filing.
Amazon seller takedown: DCSTAR enforces respiratory device patent
Filed on 31 March 2025 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Georgia N. Alexakis, this case saw DCSTAR, Inc. — represented by Sullivan & Carter LLP — pursue a Schedule A infringement action against an undisclosed group of online marketplace sellers. The asserted patent, US11478575B1, covers a device designed to remove obstructions from the respiratory tract. The defendants operated product listings across at least 17 Amazon ASINs and had no identified legal representation on the docket.
The case closed on 22 August 2025, just 144 days after filing, via default judgment granted in its entirety. Because defendants failed to appear or respond, the court deemed them in default and entered a final judgment awarding DCSTAR lost profits under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Amazon, PayPal, Payoneer, Stripe, and Amazon Payments were all named as third-party service providers subject to the order, with obligations to freeze and transfer funds and disable the infringing listings within five business days.
The resolution timeline is consistent with — though not unusually slow for — Northern District of Illinois Schedule A actions, which often conclude within three to six months when defendants default. The speed here is notable given the breadth of the injunction, which extends to search engines, social media platforms, and future unidentified listings. The specific lost-profits quantum per defendant is contained in the sealed Schedule A, so the total damages award is not ascertainable from the public docket. What drove the outcome is the structural advantage plaintiffs hold in these actions: anonymous defendants rarely mount a defense.
Filing to Default Judgment in 144 days
144 days from filing to final judgment — faster than the typical Schedule A e-commerce enforcement timeline
Default judgment granted: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: court grants full relief without a merits fight
When defendants fail to appear, courts may enter a default judgment awarding the plaintiff substantially all requested relief. Here, the court granted DCSTAR’s motion in its entirety — issuing a permanent injunction, ordering platform takedowns, and directing payment processors to release frozen funds. No invalidity or non-infringement defense was ever raised, so the patent stands unchallenged in this proceeding.
35 U.S.C. § 284 — lost profitsDCSTAR recovers lost profits and gains broad platform injunction
DCSTAR secured the full range of equitable and monetary relief available: a permanent injunction covering manufacturing, importing, offering for sale, and selling; compelled takedowns of 17 Amazon ASINs; frozen funds released directly to plaintiff; and ongoing authority to serve the order on newly discovered accounts. The $7,000 bond is also returned. The patent’s enforceability against future infringers is unaffected — and arguably signalled as actively monitored.
Permanent injunction enteredDefaulting sellers face injunction, account freezes, and fund seizure
Defendants — operating anonymously as ‘Partnerships Identified on Schedule A’ — suffered the maximum consequence of non-appearance: a final judgment entered against them by default. Their Amazon storefronts are disabled, payment processor accounts frozen, and funds already held by processors are released to DCSTAR as partial satisfaction of damages. Defendants retain theoretical ability to move to vacate the default, but courts rarely grant this without compelling cause.
Accounts frozen and funds seizedBroad third-party orders raise the cost of infringing on marketplace platforms
The judgment’s reach beyond the defendants themselves — binding Amazon, Google, Facebook, PayPal, and others — reflects the Northern District of Illinois’s established approach to Schedule A e-commerce enforcement. For sellers operating in the respiratory device and medical accessories space on Amazon, this case signals that IP holders can rapidly disable listings and seize revenue with limited judicial friction when defendants default. Product teams sourcing or selling similar devices should treat this patent as actively enforced.
Amazon & payment processor enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DCSTAR, Inc. | Company | Medical/consumer device IP holder — owner of US11478575B1 covering respiratory obstruction removalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers operating infringing Amazon listings across multiple storefrontsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alison K. Carter | Attorney | Counsel for DCSTAR, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ann Marie Sullivan | Attorney | Counsel for DCSTAR, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gouthami Vanam Tufts | Attorney | Counsel for DCSTAR, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Joseph Mariane , IV | Attorney | Counsel for DCSTAR, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sullivan & Carter LLP | Law Firm | Representing DCSTAR, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Georgia N. Alexakis | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is sweeping in both scope and immediacy. By granting the motion ‘in its entirety,’ the judgment adopts DCSTAR’s requested relief without modification — a standard outcome in uncontested default proceedings but significant because it leaves no carve-outs or limitations. The lost-profits award under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (rather than a reasonable royalty) signals DCSTAR successfully pleaded market harm. The forward-looking injunction covering ‘not-yet identified’ listings is particularly notable: it gives DCSTAR ongoing enforcement authority without returning to court.
US11478575B1 — Respiratory tract obstruction removal device and connector
US11478575B1 was granted as a B1 patent — meaning it issued without a prior publication, typically indicating the application was not published before grant (common for applications abandoned before the 18-month publication point, or for certain design-track filings). Filed under application number US17/393249, the patent protects a device designed to remove obstructions from the respiratory tract, including a connector mechanism. This positions it in the intersection of consumer emergency-response tools and medical accessories — a category with significant Amazon marketplace activity.
The patent’s commercial relevance lies primarily in the e-commerce medical accessories market, where low-cost manufacturers — particularly those fulfilling via Amazon FBA — produce functionally similar respiratory clearing devices. DCSTAR’s willingness to pursue 17 separate ASINs in a single Schedule A action suggests the patent covers commercially salient product features, not merely peripheral design elements. For competitors designing or sourcing anti-choking, airway-clearance, or respiratory first-aid products, independent claim analysis against this patent is a material FTO obligation.
Should your product team run an FTO against US11478575B1?
Any company developing, importing, or selling respiratory obstruction removal devices — including anti-choking devices, airway suction aids, or emergency respiratory accessories — on Amazon or other online marketplaces should assess exposure to US11478575B1. The breadth of the injunction in this case, covering manufacturing, importing, and offering for sale, means that supply-chain participants upstream of the retail listing are also potentially at risk. Given that this patent has never faced an inter partes review or validity challenge, its claims are presumed valid and enforceable in their granted form.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US11478575B1 against your product specifications, identify prior art that could inform an invalidity argument, and flag design-around options. Given the Schedule A enforcement pattern visible here, proactive FTO analysis is more cost-effective than reactive defence. Eureka can also monitor DCSTAR’s portfolio and docket activity to give your team early warning of new enforcement filings in this product category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11478575B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent infringement cases: respiratory & medical devices
Cases involving Schedule A defendants, Amazon marketplace enforcement, and medical or consumer device patents in the Northern District of Illinois follow closely comparable procedural patterns.
What this case signals for the medical device e-commerce IP landscape
Schedule A default judgments are a growing enforcement tool — this case illustrates the speed and breadth of relief available in the Northern District of Illinois.
Northern District of Illinois remains a high-velocity Schedule A venue
This case resolved in 144 days with full plaintiff-requested relief. The N.D. Ill. continues to process Schedule A e-commerce actions efficiently, particularly when defendants default. Patent holders in the consumer and medical device space should evaluate this venue for enforcement campaigns targeting anonymous online sellers.
Third-party platform orders extend the enforcement perimeter significantly
The judgment explicitly binds Amazon, PayPal, Payoneer, Stripe, Google, Facebook, and others. This multi-stakeholder enforcement model — standard in N.D. Ill. Schedule A cases — means that even defendants who evade direct service face disrupted sales infrastructure and frozen revenue. Companies supplying or distributing products in infringing categories face collateral risk from such orders.
DCSTAR v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in DCSTAR’s favour on 22 August 2025. The court granted DCSTAR’s motion in its entirety, issuing a permanent injunction, ordering takedown of 17 Amazon ASINs, and directing payment processors to release frozen defendant funds to DCSTAR as partial satisfaction of lost-profits damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
DCSTAR asserted US11478575B1, filed under application number US17/393249, which covers a removal device for clearing obstructions in the respiratory tract, including a connector component. The patent issued as a B1 — without a prior publication — and has not been challenged via inter partes review or post-grant proceedings as of the case close date.
The injunction prohibits defendants from manufacturing, importing, offering for sale, or selling products infringing US11478575B1. It requires Amazon to disable 17 specific ASINs, directs PayPal, Payoneer, Stripe, and Amazon Payments to freeze and transfer funds, and binds search engines and social media platforms. It also covers future unidentified listings, giving DCSTAR ongoing authority to serve the order on newly discovered accounts.
Damages were awarded as lost profits under 35 U.S.C. § 284, the higher damages standard requiring proof that the patentee would have made the sales but for the infringement. The specific per-defendant amounts are contained in the sealed Schedule A attached to the judgment and are not publicly ascertainable from the court docket. Frozen funds already held by payment processors were ordered released to DCSTAR as partial satisfaction.
Defendants who were properly served retain the theoretical ability to file a motion to vacate the default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), but courts apply a demanding standard requiring a showing of good cause, a meritorious defence, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff. Given the anonymous nature of Schedule A defendants and the structural dynamics of these cases, vacatur motions are rarely successful. A direct appeal to the Seventh Circuit is also procedurally available within 30 days of final judgment entry.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.