Case Overview

In a swift resolution spanning just 55 days, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in favor of Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. against more than 100 online marketplace sellers accused of infringing U.S. Design Patent No. USD980990S, covering a **finger stretcher** product. Filed on January 18, 2024, and closed on March 13, 2024, Case No. 1:24-cv-00445 exemplifies the accelerating trend of design patent infringement litigation targeting anonymous e-commerce sellers operating through online marketplace platforms.

This case matters beyond its individual outcome. It reflects a well-established but continuously evolving enforcement strategy in which Chinese IP holders — increasingly asserting their own registered design patents — use Schedule A mass litigation to neutralize competing sellers on platforms like Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress. For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in the consumer products and e-commerce space, this case offers instructive procedural and strategic lessons.

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

The intellectual property at the center of this dispute is **U.S. Design Patent No. USD980990S** (Application No. US29/814406). Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of a functional article — in this case, the visual design of a **finger stretcher**, a consumer rehabilitation and exercise device commonly sold through online retail channels. Unlike utility patents, design patents focus exclusively on how a product looks, not how it works, making visual similarity between the patented design and accused products the central infringement question.

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

The Accused Products

The accused products are finger stretcher devices sold by the defendant storefronts across online marketplaces. The commercial significance is clear: the finger stretcher market is a high-volume, low-cost consumer category with intense competition from numerous third-party sellers, making IP enforcement an effective competitive tool.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Kunshengze was represented by **Depeng Bi** and **Konrad Val Sherinian** of **The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC**. No defendant legal representation was entered in the record — a fact central to the default judgment outcome. The Sherinian firm has developed notable experience in Schedule A e-commerce patent enforcement matters.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case was filed in the **Northern District of Illinois**, a preferred venue for Schedule A IP enforcement actions due to its established procedural familiarity with this litigation format, availability of ex parte temporary restraining orders (TROs), and efficient case management practices. Chief Judge **John Robert Blakey** presided over the matter.

The 55-day resolution is notably fast, even by Schedule A standards. Following service of process — completed more than 21 days before the default motion — the defendants failed to appear, answer, or otherwise respond. This procedural posture triggered Kunshengze’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, which the court subsequently granted. No claim construction hearing, discovery phase, or trial was required given the defendants’ complete non-participation.

Outcome

Judge Blakey **granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment** against all Defaulting Defendants. Specific damages figures were not disclosed in the available case record. Injunctive relief terms, including any platform-level account freezing or product delisting orders typical in Schedule A actions, were not separately detailed in the provided data.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The legal basis for default judgment is procedurally straightforward under **Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55**: when a properly served defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend, the plaintiff is entitled to default judgment upon proper motion. Here, all Defaulting Defendants were served more than 21 days prior to the motion, none had been dismissed, and none filed responsive pleadings through counsel or pro se. The substantive infringement claim — design patent infringement of USD980990S — was not contested on the merits due to defendants’ non-appearance. Under default judgment doctrine, well-pleaded factual allegations regarding infringement are deemed admitted. This means the court accepted Kunshengze’s infringement allegations as true without requiring evidentiary proof of the ornamental similarity analysis typically conducted in contested design patent cases.

Legal Significance

While default judgments carry limited direct precedential value on the merits, this case reinforces the **procedural effectiveness of Schedule A mass litigation** for design patent enforcement in e-commerce contexts. The case also illustrates an important dynamic: the barrier to obtaining meaningful IP relief in these matters is often not substantive legal argument, but rather administrative execution — proper service, accurate Schedule A identification, and timely motion practice. From a design patent doctrine perspective, the case does not generate new claim construction guidance, given the absence of contested proceedings. However, the assertion of a design patent by a Chinese e-commerce plaintiff against predominantly Chinese marketplace sellers signals a maturing of IP enforcement strategy among non-U.S. companies operating in the American consumer products space.

Strategic Takeaways (Detailed)

For Patent Holders and Plaintiffs: Schedule A litigation combined with design patent rights remains a high-efficiency enforcement mechanism in e-commerce markets. Rapid default judgment timelines (here, 55 days) demonstrate that swift resolution is achievable with proper procedural execution. Design patent registration for core product aesthetics creates actionable IP assets even for small-to-mid-size e-commerce operators.

For Accused Infringers and Defense Counsel: Non-appearance guarantees adverse judgment — even minimally responsive pleadings preserve the ability to contest infringement or challenge patent validity. Design patent validity challenges (e.g., prior art, functionality arguments under *Egyptian Goddess*) are only available to defendants who actually appear. Anonymous marketplace storefronts do not insulate sellers from U.S. court jurisdiction when operating on platforms with U.S. reach.

For R&D and Product Teams: Freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis should include design patent searches, not only utility patent searches, particularly in commoditized consumer product categories. Ornamental design differentiation — documented through design iteration records — supports both prosecution strategy and potential invalidity defenses.