Design Patent Win: Chinese Tech Firm Secures $75K Default Judgment Per Defendant in Portable Fan Case

Introduction

A Chinese technology company secured a decisive default judgment against a network of anonymous e-commerce sellers in the Northern District of Illinois, with the court awarding $75,000 per defaulting defendant for willful infringement of a registered U.S. design patent covering a portable fan. Case No. 1:24-cv-05111, Shenzhen Gaiyatuopu Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A, closed on October 22, 2025, after approximately 490 days of litigation.

The case is a textbook example of the “Schedule A” enforcement model — an increasingly prevalent litigation strategy in which plaintiffs target large cohorts of overseas sellers operating across major U.S. e-commerce platforms. For patent attorneys, IP managers, and R&D teams operating in the consumer electronics and personal appliance space, this outcome offers instructive lessons on design patent assertion, cross-border enforcement, and the compounding effect of treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and § 289.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This case involved a U.S. Design Patent covering the ornamental design of a portable fan:

• • U.S. Design Patent No. D964,544 — Ornamental design of a portable fan (Application No. 29/814,352)

The Accused Products

Defendants were alleged to be selling portable fans through e-commerce storefronts on platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Temu, and Walmart that incorporated the ornamental design claimed in the ‘544 Patent without authorization.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Benjamin Adam Campbell, Edward L. Bishop, Nicholas S. Lee, and Sameeul Haque of Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. and Dickinson Wright PLLC.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Total Duration: 490 days (approximately 16 months)

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Chief Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings. Venue in the Northern District of Illinois is a strategic choice well-established in Schedule A litigation — the court has a developed body of practice with anonymous defendant IP cases, electronic service authorization, and asset-freeze orders against overseas e-commerce sellers.

Plaintiff posted a $10,000 surety bond in connection with the TRO, which the court ordered returned upon final judgment. Service was accomplished through a combination of electronic publication and email — a method the court found constitutionally adequate under the circumstances.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

Judge Cummings entered Final Default Judgment on October 22, 2025, against all remaining defendants on Schedule A. The court found:

• Defaulting Defendants liable for willful patent infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D964,544
• Damages of $25,000 per defendant as a reasonable royalty or total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and § 289
• Treble damages awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 284 due to willfulness finding
• Total judgment: $75,000 per defaulting defendant

The court further granted a **permanent injunction** prohibiting defendants from using, selling, distributing, or manufacturing products incorporating the ‘544 Patent design.

Verdict Cause Analysis

Because all defendants failed to appear, the allegations of the complaint were deemed admitted by default. The court made affirmative findings on personal jurisdiction, concluding that defendants directly targeted Illinois consumers by:

• Operating interactive commercial storefronts accessible to Illinois residents
• Offering and completing U.S.-bound shipping, including to Illinois
• Selling products that a claim chart (Docket No. 5-3) demonstrated infringed the ‘544 Patent

The willfulness finding — critical to the treble damages award — was supported by the defendants’ deliberate operation of commercial storefronts selling the infringing design without any license or authorization from Plaintiff.

Platform and Asset Enforcement

A particularly significant feature of the judgment is its direct reach into third-party payment and marketplace ecosystems. The court ordered the following platforms to freeze and release funds within specified timeframes:

• Marketplaces: Amazon, eBay, Walmart, AliExpress, Alibaba, Temu, Wish.com
• Payment processors: PayPal, Alipay, Ant Financial, Amazon Pay

Third-party providers were directed to disable accounts and cease hosting infringing listings within seven calendar days of receiving the order.

Legal Significance

35 U.S.C. § 289 is a design-patent-specific damages provision allowing recovery of a defendant’s total profits from the sale of an article bearing the infringing design — a potentially more plaintiff-favorable measure than reasonable royalty. The court’s dual citation of both § 284 and § 289 reflects standard practice in design patent default judgment cases, maximizing the damages floor.

The willfulness finding, though entered by default, is legally significant — it triggers the court’s discretion to award up to three times compensatory damages under § 284, as applied here.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The portable fan and personal cooling device market — a segment experiencing significant growth driven by climate trends and remote work environments — has become a significant battleground for design patent enforcement, particularly against Chinese marketplace sellers.

This case reflects a broader enforcement trend: U.S.-based IP holders, including foreign companies with U.S. registrations, are aggressively leveraging Schedule A litigation to police e-commerce channels. The model’s efficiency — a single complaint, consolidated defendants, electronic service, and platform-level enforcement — makes it economically viable even for mid-market IP holders.

For companies operating in adjacent consumer electronics categories (personal care devices, small appliances, portable tech accessories), this case signals that design patent portfolios are active enforcement assets, not merely defensive hedges. The involvement of platforms like Temu and AliExpress alongside Amazon and Walmart underscores that no major U.S.-accessible marketplace is insulated from court-ordered enforcement action.

Licensing considerations are also implicated: the $75,000 per-defendant damages threshold establishes a de facto litigation cost floor that makes early licensing or settlement economically rational for sellers who receive pre-suit notice.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Holders:

• Design patents offer potent, streamlined enforcement tools against e-commerce infringers, particularly where ornamental distinctiveness is clear
• Schedule A litigation combined with pre-judgment TROs and asset freezes creates rapid leverage before defendants can dissipate funds
• Electronic service authorization substantially reduces procedural barriers against overseas defendants

For Accused Infringers / E-Commerce Sellers:

• Failure to respond results in willfulness findings and treble damages — appearing and contesting even a weak defense can materially reduce exposure
• Platform accounts and payment processor funds are directly vulnerable to court orders
• Anonymous seller structures provide limited protection when platforms cooperate with court-ordered discovery and asset freezes

For R&D Teams:

• Conduct Freedom to Operate (FTO) analysis covering design patents, not just utility patents, before launching consumer product lines on U.S. e-commerce channels
• Ornamental design elements of competitive products may be protected and independently enforceable even where functional aspects are unprotected