Case Overview

The Parties

Patents at Issue

This case involved two U.S. design patents covering ornamental designs for a male chastity device. Design patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and protect ornamental appearance rather than functional technology.

• • US D969,303 — Ornamental appearance of a male chastity device
• • US D921,182 — Related ornamental design in the same product category

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The court granted **default judgment** in favor of plaintiff Yuxi Wang on March 19, 2024. The specific damages amount awarded was not disclosed in the available case record, as plaintiff’s counsel was directed to submit a proposed default judgment order. The civil case was formally terminated upon entry of that order, concluding just 203 days after filing.

Key Legal Issues

Default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) is granted when a properly served defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend against a complaint. In this case, not a single named defendant entered an appearance or filed a response. This outcome bypasses traditional infringement analysis, meaning the court did not conduct claim construction, apply the ordinary observer test, or evaluate prior art. The plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations of design patent infringement were accepted as true by operation of law.

This is a critical procedural distinction: default judgment does not constitute a merits ruling on patent validity or infringement, but it carries full legal enforceability, including potential injunctive relief and monetary damages as proposed by the prevailing party.

Strategic Takeaways

This case exemplifies a well-established and growing litigation strategy in design patent enforcement: the **Schedule A complaint**. By bundling numerous anonymous e-commerce defendants into a single action, patent holders achieve economies of scale in litigation costs while maximizing enforcement reach. The Northern District of Illinois, presided over by Chief Judge **Thomas M. Durkin**, has seen hundreds of such cases, and the default judgment outcome in Wang v. Schedule A Defendants reinforces that non-responsive defendants face near-certain adverse judgment.

For the design patent bar, the case reaffirms that **design patents on consumer products remain powerful enforcement tools**, particularly against overseas manufacturers operating through marketplace accounts. The two asserted patents — USD969,303 and USD921,182 — cover distinct ornamental designs, suggesting a deliberate prosecution strategy of building a design patent family around a core product to broaden enforcement coverage.