Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
DiFOLD Inc. v. MEIRUIER & sicangsha — Collapsible Container Patent | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID0:25-cv-61376
FiledJul 2025
ClosedOct 2025
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
100days
100 days from filing to administrative close — faster than typical Schedule A enforcement cycles
Patents asserted
2
USD1002386S and USD0935892S — collapsible container industrial designs, two design patents asserted
Outcome
Default Judgment
Clerk’s default entered Oct 14, 2025; default final judgment motion pending by Nov 5, 2025
Cost ruling
Pending
Damages quantum and cost award to be determined in forthcoming default final judgment motion
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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.

Case at a glance
Case no.0:25-cv-61376
PlaintiffDiFOLD Inc.
CourtFlorida Southern
JudgeMelissa Damian
FiledJuly 7, 2025
ClosedOctober 15, 2025
Duration100 days
OutcomeDefault Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDefault Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Florida Southern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Default Judgment in 100 days

100 days from filing to administrative close — faster than typical Schedule A enforcement cycles

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUL 7 2025, AUG–SEP — 100 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in DiFOLD Inc. v The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Florida Southern District Court. JUL 7 2025 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings OCT 15 2025 Default Judgment 100 DAYS TOTAL
Default judgment

Clerk’s default entered: what this means for DiFOLD and the defendants

Legal mechanism

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 procedure
Plaintiff’s position

DiFOLD 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 available
Defendant exposure

Non-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 liability
Commercial implications

Schedule 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 likely
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 0:25-cv-61376 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffDiFOLD Inc.CompanyConsumer product design IP holder — holder of USD1002386S and USD0935892SSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule AIndividualE-commerce sellers MEIRUIER and sicangsha — alleged collapsible container design infringersSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselValeria MunozAttorneyCounsel for DiFOLD Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmBoies Schiller & Flexner, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting DiFOLD Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Melissa DamianJudgeFlorida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Clerk’s Entry of Default, entered on October 14, 2025, as to Defendants, MEIRUIER and sicangsha (collectively, “Defendants”) [ECF No. 31]. Upon review of the record, it appears that Defendants have indeed failed to respond to the Complaint or otherwise appear in this action. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff DiFold Inc. (“Plaintiff”) must file one of the following two responses by November 5, 2025: (1) Where there is only one Defendant, or where there are multiple Defendants,1 but no allegations of joint and several liability, and no possibility of inconsistent liability between Defendants, Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Default Final Judgment. The Motion for Default Final Judgment must include affidavits of any sum certain due by Defendant, and any other supporting documentation necessary to determine Plaintiff’s 1 If there are multiple Defendants, Plaintiff must state in the Motion for Default Final Judgment that there are no allegations of joint and several liability and set forth the basis why there is no possibility of inconsistent liability. Case 0:25-cv-61376-MD Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2025 Page 1 of 3 2 measure of damages. The Motion shall also be accompanied by (1) the necessary affidavit under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3931(b), if applicable; (2) a proposed order which details both the factual and legal basis for default; and (3) a proposed final judgment. (These last two are required by Local Rule 7.1(a)(2)). Pursuant to the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures, the proposed orders shall be submitted to the Court by e-mail in Word format at [email protected]. Plaintiff shall send a copy of the Motion to Defendants’ counsel, or to Defendants if they do not have counsel. In the certificate of service, Plaintiff shall indicate that notice was sent to Defendants and the address where the notice was sent. Plaintiff shall not rely solely on the Court’s CM/ECF system to effect such service. If Defendants fail to move to set aside the Clerk’s Default or respond to the Motion for Default Final Judgment within the time permitted by the Rules, default final judgment may be entered, which, simply put, means that Plaintiff may be able to take Defendants’ property or money, and/or obtain other relief against Defendants. (2) Alternatively, where there are multiple Defendants and allegations of joint and several liability, or the possibility of inconsistent liability between Defendants, Plaintiff shall file a Notice of Joint Liability. See Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872); 10A Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2690 (4th ed. 2021) (citing Frow, 82 U.S. at 554); see also Gulf Coast Fans, Inc. v. Midwest Elecs. Imp., Inc., 740 F.2d 1499, 1512 (11th Cir. 1984). The Notice of Joint Liability must briefly describe the allegations and advise the Court of the status of the other Defendant’s liability. Once liability is resolved as to all Defendants, Case 0:25-cv-61376-MD Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2025 Page 2 of 3 3 Plaintiff may move for the entry of default final judgment against Defendants, as described in (1) above, no later than 14 days thereafter. Plaintiff’s failure to file a Motion for Default Final Judgment or Notice of Joint Liability within the specified time may result in sanctions, including but not limited to, dismissal without prejudice as to Defendants MEIRUIER and sicangsha. In light of the default of all Defendants and that the forthcoming Motion for Default Final Judgment is all that remains in this case, it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court CLOSE this case for administrative and statistical purposes. The case may be reopened if any Defendant appears and files a motion to set aside the default. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in the Southern District of Florida this 15th day of October, 2025.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 0:25-cv-61376, Florida Southern District Court

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).

PACER case 0:25-cv-61376 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USD1002386S & USD0935892S — Collapsible Container Ornamental Designs

Publication No.USD1002386S
Application No.US29/810610
Patent details
ProductCollapsible container ornamental design — foldable form factor
Cited in actionJuly 7, 2025

Publication No.USD0935892S
Application No.US29/712365
Patent details
ProductCollapsible container ornamental design — earlier registered configuration
Cited in actionJuly 7, 2025

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.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

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.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1002386S to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
DiFOLD Inc. patent enforcement history, Florida Southern case history, DiFOLD Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
FLSD Schedule A defaultsDesign patent § 289 verdictsCollapsible product IP disputesE-commerce seller enforcement
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What 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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated insights on design patent enforcement strategy in FLSD Schedule A actions and collapsible container IP risk.
§ 289 damages exposurePlatform takedown strategyDesign patent scope analysis
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

DiFOLD v Individuals — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

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.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.