Introduction

In a swift resolution spanning just 122 days, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a final default judgment in favor of Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. against a network of anonymous online sellers in a design patent infringement action involving a finger stretcher product. The case, 1:23-cv-16109, closed on March 21, 2024, under Chief Judge Franklin U. Valderrama, following a procedurally efficient enforcement campaign that concluded without any meaningful opposition from defendants.

This case exemplifies a well-established enforcement model increasingly deployed by e-commerce IP holders against marketplace infringers — commonly known as “Schedule A” litigation. For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in the consumer health and rehabilitation device space, this outcome offers valuable insights into design patent assertion strategy, default judgment mechanics, and the tactical use of surety bonds in multi-defendant IP actions.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

The intellectual property at the center of this dispute is U.S. Design Patent No. USD980,990S (application number US29/814,406). Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of a functional article, not its utility. In this context, the patent covers the distinctive visual design of a **finger stretcher** — a rehabilitative device used to stretch and strengthen finger joints, commonly marketed toward arthritis patients, musicians, and athletes.

Design patents, unlike utility patents, are infringed when an ordinary observer would consider the accused product’s appearance substantially similar to the patented design. This relatively plaintiff-friendly standard often makes design patents powerful tools in e-commerce enforcement actions.

• • US D980,990S — Ornamental design for a finger stretcher

Legal Representation

Plaintiff was represented by Depeng Bi and Konrad Val Sherinian of The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC, based in Naperville, Illinois. No defense counsel appeared on record, which is characteristic of Schedule A cases where defendants frequently fail to respond.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Total Duration: 122 days

The case was filed in the Northern District of Illinois, a jurisdiction that has become a preferred venue for Schedule A patent and trademark infringement actions due to its judicial familiarity with multi-defendant e-commerce enforcement matters and its established procedural framework for handling anonymous online seller defendants.

The compressed 122-day timeline — from filing to final closure — is notably efficient even by Schedule A standards, reflecting both the uncontested nature of the proceedings and effective case management by Chief Judge Franklin U. Valderrama. The absence of any defendant-side legal representation eliminated the procedural friction that typically extends litigation timelines, including claim construction hearings, discovery disputes, and summary judgment briefing.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against all defendants identified in the List of Defaulting Defendants. Following confirmation via status report (Docket No. 75) that the initial default judgment motion (Docket No. 68) had disposed of all remaining defendants, the Court converted the Default Judgment Order (Docket No. 72) into a Final Judgment Order, effectively closing the case with a complete plaintiff victory.

Additionally, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Return of Bond (Docket No. 73), releasing the $10,000 surety bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court — including accrued interest, minus applicable registry fees — to Plaintiff’s counsel, Konrad Val Sherinian, via certified mail to the firm’s Naperville address.

Specific damages amounts were not disclosed in the available case data, which is common in default judgment scenarios where courts may enter injunctive relief and statutory damages that are not always prominently reported in terminal docket entries.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The basis for judgment was straightforward: infringement action under design patent law. Because all defendants failed to appear or respond, the Court accepted the well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint as admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. This eliminated any need for the Court to engage in formal claim construction analysis or infringement fact-finding — procedural steps that would be essential in contested design patent litigation.

The strategic significance of the surety bond mechanics deserves attention. In Schedule A actions, courts routinely require plaintiffs to post a temporary restraining order (TRO) bond as security against wrongful injunctive relief. The full bond return here signals that the Court found no basis for harm to defendants — consistent with a complete default judgment outcome.

Legal Significance

While this case does not establish new legal precedent on design patent claim scope or the ordinary observer test, it reinforces the operational viability of Schedule A enforcement campaigns as a scalable IP protection strategy for e-commerce-facing patent holders. The case demonstrates that U.S. design patents, particularly those covering consumer product aesthetics, can be effectively enforced against anonymous online marketplace sellers when paired with proper venue selection, early injunctive relief motions, and disciplined default judgment prosecution.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The finger stretcher and hand rehabilitation device market is a relatively low-barrier-to-entry consumer product category, making it particularly susceptible to design copying across online marketplaces. This case reflects a broader enforcement trend in which Chinese e-commerce companies holding U.S. IP registrations are asserting those rights aggressively against anonymous marketplace competitors — including other China-based sellers.

This dynamic challenges the conventional assumption that Chinese IP holders are primarily defendants in U.S. patent litigation. Increasingly, sophisticated Chinese e-commerce entities are building U.S. IP portfolios and leveraging the American court system to protect market share, as demonstrated here.

For companies in the consumer health device, rehabilitation accessory, or hand therapy product sectors, this case signals that design patent enforcement activity in this category is active and consequential. Marketplace sellers should conduct proactive design clearance reviews, and manufacturers should consider filing design patent applications to protect commercially valuable product appearances.