Default Judgment Granted in Chocolate Bar Mold Design Patent Case

Introduction

In a swift resolution spanning just 60 days, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in favor of plaintiff Xingshao Li against anonymous online sellers accused of infringing a registered design patent covering a chocolate bar mold. Case No. 1:25-cv-14343, presided over by Chief Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, concluded on January 23, 2026, with a permanent injunction, $30,000 in compensatory damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and sweeping platform-level enforcement orders targeting major e-commerce marketplaces and payment processors.

This case exemplifies the increasingly popular “Schedule A” litigation model—a strategic enforcement mechanism deployed against clusters of anonymous online infringers—and offers valuable procedural and strategic insights for patent holders, IP counsel, and product designers navigating design patent enforcement in e-commerce environments. For R&D teams and IP professionals, the outcome underscores the real commercial risk of selling unauthorized design patent replicas through platforms such as Amazon, AliExpress, and Walmart.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

The asserted patent, USD1052361S (Application No. US29/948558), is a **U.S. design patent** protecting the ornamental appearance of a chocolate bar mold. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect novel, non-functional aesthetic elements of a manufactured article. Unlike utility patents, infringement is assessed under the “ordinary observer” test established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008), which asks whether an ordinary observer would confuse the accused design with the patented design.

The infringing product was identified as a **chocolate bar mold**—a consumer kitchenware item commonly sold through online retail platforms. The commercial significance lies in its widespread availability across major e-commerce ecosystems, enabling low-barrier reproduction and rapid infringement at scale by multiple anonymous sellers.

Plaintiff Xingshao Li was represented by attorney **Ge Lei** of **Getech Law LLC**, a firm with recognized experience in e-commerce IP enforcement and Schedule A patent litigation. No legal representation was entered on behalf of any defendant, which directly precipitated the default judgment outcome.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Filed in the Northern District of Illinois—a jurisdiction well-known for its receptivity to Schedule A IP enforcement actions and its established procedural framework for handling anonymous defendant cases—the case moved with exceptional speed.

The plaintiff’s filing in this district reflects deliberate venue strategy. Northern Illinois courts have developed streamlined processes for Schedule A cases, including temporary restraining orders (TROs) against financial accounts and domain names early in proceedings. No defendant entered an appearance or filed a responsive pleading, triggering the motion for entry of default. Chief Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, presiding over the case, granted the plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment, closing the case within 60 days of filing—a remarkably compressed timeline even by Schedule A standards.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

Chief Judge Jenkins granted **Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment** in its entirety. The court’s order established:

• • Default status of all non-appearing defendants
• • Permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement
• • $30,000 in compensatory damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, specifically including a finding of willful infringement
• • Asset freezing and transfer orders directed at third-party platforms and payment processors

Verdict Cause Analysis

The legal basis is a straightforward **patent infringement action** under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Because no defendant appeared or contested the claims, the court accepted the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as admitted. The willful infringement finding—significant for damages purposes—was supported by the uncontested record, allowing the court to award damages under § 284, which authorizes up to treble damages for willful infringement. The $30,000 award, while on the lower end of potential § 284 damages, reflects compensatory rather than enhanced damages in this instance.

The injunctive relief is notably comprehensive. Beyond restraining the defendants themselves, the order extends to:

• • Domain name registries and registrars (including VeriSign, GoDaddy, Namecheap), ordered to transfer or disable defendant domain names within seven days
• • Online marketplaces (Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Walmart, Wish.com, Dhgate, Alibaba), ordered to disable seller accounts within seven days
• • Payment processors (PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, Ant Financial, Walmart Pay), ordered to freeze and release funds up to the $30,000 damage award within 14 days

This multi-vector enforcement architecture—simultaneously targeting infrastructure, storefronts, and financial flows—is a hallmark of modern Schedule A design patent litigation.

Legal Significance

The case reinforces several important legal principles:

1. Default as a litigation tool: In Schedule A cases, default judgment is often the anticipated outcome. Plaintiffs structure their complaints and TRO motions knowing defendants are unlikely to appear, making procedural precision at filing critical.
2. Design patent enforceability in e-commerce: USD1052361S demonstrates that even everyday consumer product designs—here, a chocolate bar mold—carry enforceable IP rights capable of generating injunctive relief and damages against online infringers.
3. Third-party platform liability framework: The order’s reach to non-party platforms under actual notice principles reflects the court’s application of established injunctive authority over those in “active concert” with defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d).

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Holders: Design patents on consumer products sold online are cost-effective enforcement tools. Filing in receptive jurisdictions like the Northern District of Illinois with experienced Schedule A counsel can yield complete relief within 60 days.

For Accused Infringers/Online Sellers: Failure to appear in Schedule A litigation results in certain default judgment. Sellers on Amazon, AliExpress, or Dhgate selling design-patent-adjacent products should conduct FTO (freedom to operate) clearance before listing.

For R&D and Product Teams: Mold designs, packaging configurations, and product aesthetics—often overlooked—may be protected by design patents. Reviewing competitors’ design patent portfolios before product launches is essential risk mitigation.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The Xingshao Li v. Schedule A Defendants case fits squarely within a broader litigation wave targeting counterfeit and infringing consumer goods sold through global e-commerce platforms. Schedule A patent and trademark litigation has surged in Northern Illinois over the past several years, reflecting both the court’s procedural efficiency and the strategic advantages of consolidated multi-defendant enforcement.

For the kitchenware and baking accessories market, this case signals that design patent holders are actively monitoring online marketplaces for infringing listings and are prepared to act swiftly. Sellers sourcing products from overseas manufacturers—particularly those offering molds, kitchen tools, or consumer goods with distinctive aesthetic features—face meaningful IP risk if they fail to verify design patent clearance.

From a licensing perspective, cases resolved by default judgment rarely produce licensing relationships; however, they establish public enforcement records that deter future infringement and strengthen a patent holder’s negotiating position in subsequent disputes. The platform-level enforcement orders also create practical barriers for infringers attempting to reconstitute operations under new storefronts.