Dongguan Tesimai v. ampm1: Default Judgment & Injunction Over Toy Aircraft Design Patent
Dongguan Tesimai Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. secured a default judgment and permanent injunction against online seller ampm1 in the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging unauthorised making, importing, and selling of toy aircraft that infringed design patent USD0891522S. The case closed in 274 days without the defendant appearing to contest the claims.
Design Patent Enforcer Wins Uncontested Default Over Toy Aircraft Copies
Dongguan Tesimai Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese consumer electronics and toy manufacturer, filed suit on 18 February 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:25-cv-00228) against online seller ampm1. The complaint alleged direct patent infringement of design patent USD0891522S — covering the ornamental design of a toy aircraft — as well as copyright infringement through the defendant’s unauthorised use of plaintiff’s copyrighted works in product listings and marketing materials.
Defendant ampm1 failed to appear or respond to the complaint, leading the Clerk of Court to enter a default. Plaintiff’s counsel at Whitewood Law, PLLC subsequently moved for default judgment and a permanent injunction. Judge W. Scott Hardy granted the motion on 19 November 2025, finding defendants liable for direct patent and copyright infringement and expressly noting that the patent and copyright claims had not been shown to be invalid or unenforceable — a standard finding in default proceedings where the defendant mounts no invalidity challenge.
The 274-day duration is consistent with uncontested default actions in e-commerce infringement cases, where the primary driver of resolution speed is service of process and the clerk’s default entry rather than substantive litigation. The public record does not disclose any damages quantum — the order recites liability and injunctive relief but any monetary award detail would require review of the underlying motion papers. The absence of defendant counsel throughout suggests ampm1 is likely a small online marketplace seller, a pattern common in Schedule A enforcement actions targeting multiple defendants.
Filing to Default Judgment in 274 days
274 days — faster than the median U.S. district court patent case, reflecting an uncontested default proceeding
Default judgment entered: what the order means for both parties
Default judgment: liability without a merits contest
When a defendant fails to appear or respond, the plaintiff may move for a default judgment. The court accepts the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true for liability purposes. Here, the court found ampm1 liable for direct patent and copyright infringement and expressly noted that neither claim was shown to be invalid or unenforceable — the standard phrasing in default orders where no invalidity defence is raised.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) defaultTesimai secures injunction and an uncontested liability finding
Dongguan Tesimai obtained the two core remedies it sought: a liability judgment on both patent and copyright claims, and a permanent injunction barring ampm1 from continued manufacture, import, sale, and offering for sale of infringing toy aircraft. The court’s finding that the patent was not shown invalid strengthens — though does not formally adjudicate — the patent’s presumption of validity for future enforcement actions against other sellers.
Permanent injunction grantedampm1 faces injunction with no opportunity to contest validity
By failing to appear, ampm1 forfeited any opportunity to challenge the validity of USD0891522S or contest infringement on the merits. The permanent injunction is immediately binding. A defaulting defendant may move to vacate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) and 60(b) by showing good cause, but this requires prompt action and a meritorious defence — a high bar after judgment has been entered.
No validity challenge mountedSchedule A enforcement: a playbook for marketplace IP owners
This case follows a well-established enforcement pattern: a Chinese IP holder targets online marketplace sellers (often identified by storefront names) through Schedule A complaints, uses expedited service and default procedures, and obtains injunctions without full merits litigation. For competitors and marketplace platforms, the outcome signals that even sellers who ignore service risk permanent injunctions that can disrupt product listings and supply chains.
E-commerce IP enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DONGGUAN TESIMAI ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD | Company | Chinese toy and consumer electronics manufacturer — holder of design patent USD0891522SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ampm1 | Individual | Online marketplace seller ampm1, alleged to sell infringing toy aircraft productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Abby Marie Neu | Attorney | Counsel for DONGGUAN TESIMAI ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY CO., LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Keaton David Smith | Attorney | Counsel for DONGGUAN TESIMAI ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY CO., LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Mitchell | Attorney | Counsel for DONGGUAN TESIMAI ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY CO., LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shengmao Mu | Attorney | Counsel for DONGGUAN TESIMAI ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY CO., LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Whitewood Law, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing DONGGUAN TESIMAI ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY CO., LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge W. Scott Hardy | Judge | Pennsylvania Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants default judgment on both direct patent infringement of USD0891522S and copyright infringement, with a permanent injunction. The express finding that ‘Plaintiff’s patent and copyright claims have not been shown to be invalid or unenforceable’ reflects standard default judgment language: because no defendant appeared to raise invalidity or unenforceability defences, the court treats the claims as unrebutted. This does not constitute a substantive merits adjudication of validity — a distinction critical for any future challenger assessing the patent’s strength.
USD0891522S — Toy Aircraft Ornamental Design Patent
USD0891522S (application number US29/730859) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a toy aircraft. Design patents cover the visual, non-functional aspects of a product — in this case, the specific shape, contour, and aesthetic configuration of the toy aircraft as depicted in the patent drawings. Design patents grant a 15-year term from grant and are infringed when an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.
In the highly competitive online toy market, design patents serve as a primary IP enforcement mechanism because they are faster and cheaper to obtain than utility patents and are directly applicable to visible product appearance. For Dongguan Tesimai, USD0891522S provides a legal basis to target marketplace sellers whose product images, listings, and physical goods replicate the protected aircraft design. Competitors manufacturing or sourcing visually similar toy aircraft — particularly drone-style or fixed-wing toy models — should assess whether their designs clear the ‘ordinary observer’ infringement test before listing on U.S. platforms.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD0891522S?
Any company designing, importing, or selling toy aircraft — including drone-style models, fixed-wing toy planes, and similar consumer RC products — for the U.S. market should assess freedom to operate against USD0891522S. The permanent injunction in this case demonstrates that Dongguan Tesimai is actively enforcing its design rights. Products that share the ornamental silhouette or visual configuration of the patented aircraft may be at risk, even where functional elements differ.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD0891522S against your product design, identify prior art that may limit the patent’s effective scope, and flag related design patent families held by Tesimai or overlapping rights holders. Eureka can also monitor new filings in the toy aircraft design patent space, giving your product team early warning before an enforcement action is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0891522S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Toy & Consumer Electronics Design Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Cases involving toy and consumer goods design patent enforcement via Schedule A default proceedings in U.S. district courts, similar to this W.D. Pa. action.
What this case signals for toy and consumer electronics IP enforcement
Default judgments in Schedule A cases are accelerating as a low-cost, high-speed enforcement tool — especially for design patents covering consumer goods sold online.
Design patents are potent weapons against marketplace copycats
USD0891522S covers ornamental design — a lower validity bar than utility patents but sufficient to obtain injunctions quickly in default proceedings. Companies with visual product differentiation should prioritise design patent filings to enable this enforcement pathway. A single design patent can support simultaneous actions against multiple sellers.
Non-appearing defendants create precedent gaps, not settled law
The court’s finding that the patent ‘has not been shown to be invalid’ is a liability-by-default conclusion, not a substantive validity ruling. A defendant who does appear and mount an IPR or invalidity defence could reach a different outcome. IP teams monitoring this space should not treat default judgments as proof of patent robustness.
DONGGUAN v ampm1 — key questions answered
The Western District of Pennsylvania entered a default judgment and permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff Dongguan Tesimai on 19 November 2025. The court found defendant ampm1 liable for direct infringement of design patent USD0891522S and copyright infringement, after ampm1 failed to appear or respond to the complaint.
The court’s order permanently enjoins ampm1 from the unauthorised making, using, importing, offering for sale, and selling of infringing toy aircraft products that utilise Tesimai’s asserted patent and copyrighted works. The injunction runs against all defendants identified on Schedule A to the complaint.
USD0891522S (application number US29/730859) is a U.S. design patent held by Dongguan Tesimai Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. covering the ornamental appearance of a toy aircraft. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional aesthetic of a product and are infringed when an ordinary observer would be deceived into believing the accused product is the patented design.
Not conclusively. The court’s finding that the patent ‘has not been shown to be invalid or unenforceable’ reflects the default posture — no defendant appeared to contest validity. This is not a substantive merits adjudication. A future challenger could pursue IPR at the USPTO or raise invalidity defences in a separate proceeding.
A Schedule A case is an enforcement action where the complaint names multiple defendants — typically online marketplace sellers — identified by storefront or username on an attached schedule rather than by full legal name. Plaintiffs use this format to efficiently pursue numerous small infringers simultaneously. Default judgments and injunctions are common outcomes when defendants, often small sellers, fail to appear.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.