DiFOLD Inc. v. MEIRUIER & sicangsha: Default Entered in Collapsible Container Design Patent Dispute
DiFOLD Inc. asserted two design patents covering its foldable collapsible container against e-commerce sellers MEIRUIER and sicangsha in the Southern District of Florida. Neither defendant appeared or responded, triggering a Clerk’s default within 100 days of filing — leaving DiFOLD positioned to pursue a default final judgment for damages and injunctive relief.
DiFOLD targets anonymous e-commerce sellers in Schedule A design patent action
On July 7, 2025, DiFOLD Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida before Judge Melissa Damian, asserting design patents USD1002386S (application no. US29/810610) and USD0935892S (application no. US29/712365) against a Schedule A list of defendants, ultimately narrowed to online sellers MEIRUIER and sicangsha. The patents cover ornamental designs for collapsible containers — a product category that has seen significant counterfeiting and copycat activity through cross-border e-commerce channels.
Neither MEIRUIER nor sicangsha filed an appearance or response to the complaint. On October 14, 2025, the Clerk entered default against both defendants. The court then issued a procedural order on October 15, 2025, directing DiFOLD to file either a Motion for Default Final Judgment or a Notice of Joint Liability by November 5, 2025. The case was administratively closed pending that filing, consistent with standard Southern District of Florida practice in Schedule A enforcement matters.
The 100-day timeline from filing to administrative close is consistent with aggressively managed Schedule A IP enforcement actions, where defendant non-appearance is common. What remains unresolved from the public record is the quantum of damages DiFOLD will seek and whether it will pursue an asset freeze or disgorgement of e-commerce revenue alongside injunctive relief. The forthcoming default judgment motion will be the operative document defining the actual remedy obtained.
Filing to Default Judgment in 100 days
100 days from filing to administrative close — faster than typical Schedule A enforcement cycles
Clerk’s default entered: what this means for DiFOLD and the defendants
Clerk’s default is not a final judgment — but it sets the stage
A Clerk’s entry of default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) is a procedural finding that defendants failed to appear or plead. It does not itself award damages or injunctive relief. DiFOLD must next move for a default final judgment under Rule 55(b), supported by affidavits establishing a sum certain and proposed orders — as the court’s October 15 order explicitly requires by November 5, 2025.
Rule 55 — default procedureDiFOLD holds the initiative — damages and injunction remain to be awarded
With default entered, DiFOLD’s design patent infringement allegations are deemed admitted by MEIRUIER and sicangsha. DiFOLD must now quantify damages — typically measured as lost profits or a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. § 289 for design patent infringement, which can reach the infringer’s total profits from the infringing article. An injunction restraining further sales is also available at this stage.
§ 289 total profits remedy availableNon-appearing sellers face judgment by default — assets at risk
MEIRUIER and sicangsha’s failure to appear leaves them exposed to a final judgment without any opportunity to contest validity or infringement. The court’s order explicitly warns that plaintiff may be able to ‘take Defendants’ property or money.’ Defendants retain a narrow window to move to set aside the default before final judgment is entered, but doing so requires showing good cause under Rule 55(c).
Default exposes full damages liabilitySchedule A enforcement signals sustained IP pressure on cross-border sellers
This action is consistent with a broader enforcement pattern in which design patent holders use Schedule A complaints against anonymous or pseudonymous e-commerce sellers — particularly those operating on Amazon or similar platforms. A default judgment here could support platform takedown requests and marketplace account suspensions, extending the commercial impact well beyond the named defendants MEIRUIER and sicangsha.
Platform enforcement leverage likelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DiFOLD Inc. | Company | Consumer product design IP holder — holder of USD1002386S and USD0935892SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | E-commerce sellers MEIRUIER and sicangsha — alleged collapsible container design infringersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Valeria Munoz | Attorney | Counsel for DiFOLD Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing DiFOLD Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Melissa Damian | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The October 15, 2025 order reflects a procedurally complete entry of default rather than a merits adjudication. The court’s direction that DiFOLD file a Motion for Default Final Judgment by November 5, 2025 — with affidavits of damages and proposed orders — signals that the substantive remedy phase is still forthcoming. The administrative closure is a docket management step, not a final disposition; the case can be reopened if either defendant moves to set aside the default under Rule 55(c).
USD1002386S & USD0935892S — Collapsible Container Ornamental Designs
USD1002386S (application no. US29/810610) and USD0935892S (application no. US29/712365) are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of DiFOLD’s collapsible container products. Design patents cover the visual, non-functional aspects of an article of manufacture — meaning protection attaches to how the container looks, not how it functions. The two registrations suggest an iterative design development strategy, with USD0935892S reflecting an earlier design generation and USD1002386S a more recent iteration.
In the highly competitive foldable and collapsible container market — driven by consumer demand for space-saving kitchenware and travel accessories — ornamental design differentiation is a primary competitive moat. DiFOLD’s dual-patent posture covering successive design generations creates layered enforcement coverage, making it harder for competitors to design around a single registration. The § 289 total-profits remedy available for design patent infringement amplifies commercial deterrence significantly relative to utility patent damages.
Should you run an FTO against USD1002386S and USD0935892S?
Any manufacturer, importer, or e-commerce seller of collapsible, foldable, or stackable containers with visual similarities to DiFOLD’s registered designs faces non-trivial infringement exposure. This is particularly relevant for OEM suppliers producing for Amazon or Shopify storefronts, private-label brands sourcing from Chinese manufacturers, and product development teams working on space-saving kitchenware. Design patent infringement is assessed by the ‘ordinary observer’ test — a lower bar than utility patent claim construction.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental scope of USD1002386S and USD0935892S against your product’s visual design, identify design-around opportunities, and flag related design patent families in the collapsible container space. Eureka’s image-based prior art and design similarity tools are particularly effective for design patent clearance, enabling R&D and legal teams to assess risk before manufacturing commitments are made.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1002386S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent enforcement cases — collapsible container IP
Cases in the Southern District of Florida involving Schedule A defendants and design patent infringement claims over consumer product ornamental designs.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Collapsible container-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedDiFOLD Inc.’s broader IP enforcement history
DiFOLD Inc.’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for design patent enforcement in e-commerce
DiFOLD’s rapid default demonstrates how design patent holders can achieve swift enforcement outcomes against non-appearing online sellers.
Design patent § 289 remedy makes e-commerce targets high-value defendants
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent holder can recover the infringer’s total profits from the infringing article — not just a reasonable royalty. For sellers moving volume on e-commerce platforms, this can translate into substantial judgments, making Schedule A design patent actions an effective enforcement tool even against smaller operators.
Southern District of Florida remains a favoured venue for Schedule A IP actions
The FLSD’s familiarity with Schedule A enforcement procedures — including TRO applications, asset freezes, and default judgment protocols — makes it a strategically attractive filing venue. Judge Damian’s structured default order reflects a well-established local practice that accelerates resolution when defendants fail to appear.
Collapsible container design space is actively contested — FTO exposure is real
DiFOLD’s two asserted design patents (USD1002386S and USD0935892S) suggest a deliberate IP portfolio strategy around its collapsible container form factor. Any competitor or OEM manufacturer producing visually similar foldable container designs should assess whether their product falls within the ornamental scope of these registrations before market entry.
Default judgment creates assignable IP enforcement assets — watch for licensing activity
A default final judgment in DiFOLD’s favour will establish a public record of infringement against MEIRUIER and sicangsha’s product configurations. This precedent can be leveraged in subsequent enforcement letters, platform complaints, and licensing negotiations — effectively monetising the judgment beyond the immediate defendants.
DiFOLD v Individuals — key questions answered
DiFOLD asserted two design patents: USD1002386S (application no. US29/810610) and USD0935892S (application no. US29/712365), both covering ornamental designs for collapsible containers. The action was filed in the Southern District of Florida on July 7, 2025.
The Clerk’s entry of default, entered October 14, 2025, means defendants MEIRUIER and sicangsha failed to appear or respond to the complaint. Their failure is treated as an admission of the well-pleaded factual allegations. DiFOLD must still file a Motion for Default Final Judgment establishing damages before any monetary or injunctive relief is awarded.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent holder can recover the infringer’s total profits from the sale of the infringing article. This is a potentially broader remedy than the reasonable royalty standard applicable to utility patents. DiFOLD must submit affidavits establishing a sum certain as part of its forthcoming default judgment motion by November 5, 2025.
The Southern District of Florida is a well-established venue for Schedule A patent and trademark enforcement actions targeting anonymous or pseudonymous e-commerce sellers. FLSD courts have developed streamlined procedures for TROs, asset freezes, and default judgments in these cases, making it a strategically favoured forum for IP rights holders pursuing online infringers.
Yes. Before a default final judgment is entered, defendants may move to set aside the Clerk’s default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) by showing good cause — typically requiring a meritorious defence, lack of culpable conduct, and no prejudice to the plaintiff. The court’s October 15 order expressly states that the case may be reopened if a defendant files such a motion.
Assess your collapsible container design patent exposure today
DiFOLD’s dual-patent enforcement posture signals active monitoring of the collapsible container market. Run an FTO against USD1002386S and USD0935892S with PatSnap Eureka before your next product launch.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.