Design Patent Win: Shenzhen Qinyi Secures $10K Default Judgment on Temu
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Shenzhen Qinyi Technologies Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| Case Number | 1:24-cv-11693 (N.D. Ill.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Duration | Nov 2024 – Jun 2025 222 days |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win – $10K Damages (Default Judgment) |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Egg Bunny Plush Toys (Temu) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
China-based consumer goods company holding U.S. design patent rights in novelty plush toy designs.
🛡️ Defendant
Placeholder designation for anonymous online sellers operating through the Temu marketplace.
Patents at Issue
This case involved a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of egg bunny plush toys:
- • USD1034847S — Ornamental design of egg bunny plush toys
Designing a similar novelty product?
Check if your consumer product design might infringe this or related patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The court granted a default judgment against the unnamed Temu seller, awarding $10,000 in reasonable royalty damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. This included an asset restraint and release order for funds held on the Temu platform.
Key Legal Issues
The case exemplifies the efficient enforcement pathway for design patent holders via “Schedule A” lawsuits, where defendants’ failure to appear leads to uncontested damages awards based on reasonable royalty.
Developing a novelty product?
Learn from this case. Explore design patent strategies for stronger protection.
Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in consumer goods design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View prosecution history of USD1034847S
- Understand default judgment precedents in e-commerce IP cases
- See enforcement patterns against online marketplace sellers
🔍 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
High Risk Area
Novelty consumer products, especially plush toys
USD1034847S
Single design patent enforced
Rapid Enforcement
222-day resolution via default judgment
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys
Design patent damages can include reasonable royalties under 35 U.S.C. § 284, even in default judgments.
Search related case law →The “Schedule A” mechanism effectively consolidates claims and enables rapid asset restraint against e-commerce sellers.
Explore precedents →For R&D Teams
Conduct FTO analysis for novelty consumer products before listing on platforms like Temu to avoid infringement.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Distinctive ornamental designs, like plush toy aesthetics, are protectable and assertable IP assets.
Try AI patent drafting →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.