Default Judgment Granted in Portable Urinal Design Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Oz Urinal, LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A |
| Case Number | 1:24-cv-00849 |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Duration | Jan 2024 – Jul 2024 182 days |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win — Default Judgment ($1,000 Statutory Damages) |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Portable Male Urinals |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Holder of a registered U.S. design patent for a portable male urinal product, focused on protecting its consumer goods design.
🛡️ Defendants
E-commerce sellers (e.g., KkaFFe, Leetye Mei, LJun Wonderful Store) operating webstores targeting U.S. consumers with infringing products.
The Patent at Issue
This case involved **U.S. Design Patent No. USD836,773S** (Application No. 29/545,353), which covers the ornamental design of a portable male urinal. Design patents protect the visual appearance of a product rather than its functional attributes, meaning infringement is assessed through the “ordinary observer” test.
- • US D836,773S — Ornamental design of a portable male urinal
Selling a similar product?
Check if your portable urinal design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
Chief Judge Seeger granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment. The court awarded statutory damages of $1,000 against the Defaulting Defendants for willful infringement of Design Patent USD836,773S, and authorized Plaintiff to enforce the Final Judgment Order.
Key Legal Issues
The court’s findings included confirmation of patent validity, infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, and expressly found willful infringement due to “exact copying” and attempts to conceal misconduct. Personal jurisdiction was established over offshore defendants who targeted U.S. consumers through e-commerce stores.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in e-commerce product design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- Identify key enforcement trends in e-commerce IP
- Understand the ‘ordinary observer’ infringement test
- Review effective service methods for offshore defendants
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
Exact Copying
Leads to willful infringement finding
1 Patent at Issue
USD836,773S design patent
Effective Enforcement
Default judgment in under 6 months
✅ Key Takeaways
Design patent USD836,773S was upheld as valid and enforceable without adversarial challenge.
Search related case law →Willfulness findings in default proceedings preserve enhanced damages arguments in future related enforcement actions.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Design Patent No. USD836,773S (Application No. 29/545,353), covering the ornamental design of a portable male urinal.
No defendant appeared or answered the complaint. The court found all allegations admitted, established personal jurisdiction, and determined that willful design patent infringement had occurred under 35 U.S.C. § 271.
The outcome affirms that Schedule A enforcement actions against anonymous e-commerce sellers remain effective, with courts willing to grant default judgments, sustain willfulness findings, and validate electronic service methods in multi-defendant IP cases.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- USPTO Patent Center – USD836773S
- PACER – Case No. 1:24-cv-00849, N.D. Ill.
- Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016)
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.