DPG USA v. NX Garden: Default Judgment on Design Patent D1,041,869
DPG USA Inc. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois alleging NX Garden infringed U.S. Design Patent No. D1,041,869 covering bobbin and spool holder products. After NX Garden failed to appear, the court entered default judgment in 169 days, awarding $1,000 in damages and a permanent injunction.
Schedule A design patent enforcement ends in swift default judgment
DPG USA Inc. filed this infringement action on December 12, 2024, in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Steven C. Seeger, asserting U.S. Design Patent No. D1,041,869 (application no. US29/908137) against NX Garden and a class of unnamed online sellers identified on Schedule A. The patent covers the ornamental design of bobbin and spool holder products — a category frequently targeted in e-commerce enforcement campaigns against marketplace sellers.
The case closed on May 30, 2025, after NX Garden failed to respond or appear, prompting DPG USA to move for default judgment. Judge Seeger granted that motion, entering a permanent injunction barring NX Garden from making, using, offering, selling, or importing the infringing products, and awarding $1,000 in damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289. The damages figure is modest but the injunctive relief is the operative commercial outcome.
The 169-day resolution is consistent with the typical pace of Schedule A default actions, which are structured to move quickly when defendants do not appear. What remains unknown from the public record is the extent to which other Schedule A defendants resolved separately, whether any did appear, and the total commercial scope of DPG USA’s enforcement campaign across all named associations.
Filing to Default Judgment in 169 days
169-day resolution — faster than median district court IP cases, driven by defendant non-appearance
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: what it means when a defendant never appears
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend the action. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, the court may enter judgment against the defaulting party, accepting the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true. Here, NX Garden’s non-appearance allowed DPG USA to obtain both injunctive relief and damages without contested litigation — a common outcome in Schedule A enforcement cases.
Rule 55 default procedureDPG USA secures permanent injunction and damages without trial
The default judgment delivers DPG USA the core relief it sought: a permanent injunction preventing NX Garden from continuing to sell, import, or assist others in selling the infringing bobbin and spool holder products. The $1,000 damages award is nominal, but the injunction carries real enforcement weight — including provisions against entity restructuring to avoid the order. DPG USA may enforce the judgment under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Permanent injunction grantedNX Garden bound by permanent injunction after failing to appear
By not responding to the complaint, NX Garden forfeited the right to contest infringement, challenge patent validity, or negotiate settlement terms. It is now permanently enjoined from selling the identified products in the U.S. and faces contempt risk if it continues. The judgment also covers affiliates and agents, closing off common workarounds. Setting aside a default judgment requires showing good cause, excusable neglect, or a meritorious defense — a high bar after final judgment.
Injunction binding on affiliatesDesign patent enforcement via Schedule A: a template for e-commerce IP owners
This case is consistent with a growing enforcement model in which design patent holders file Schedule A actions against clusters of online marketplace sellers, relying on default judgments when sellers fail to appear. For competitors in the bobbin, spool holder, and craft accessories market, the case signals that ornamental design rights in this category are being actively enforced. Marketplace sellers and importers of comparable products should assess FTO exposure against DPG USA’s design patent portfolio.
Schedule A enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DPG USA Inc. | Company | E-commerce IP enforcement plaintiff — holder of Design Patent D1,041,869Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | NX Garden — online marketplace seller of allegedly infringing bobbin and spool holder productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Allen Justin Poplin | Attorney | Counsel for DPG USA Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wangxue Deng | Attorney | Counsel for DPG USA Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Avek IP LLC | Law Firm | Representing DPG USA Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Steven C. Seeger | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s default judgment order accepts DPG USA’s infringement allegations as established, having been uncontested by NX Garden. The damages award of $1,000 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289 reflects the statutory floor available for design patent infringement — not necessarily the full measure of harm. The operative relief is the permanent injunction, which is drafted broadly to capture affiliated entities and bar circumvention. No validity or non-infringement defenses were adjudicated; the judgment reflects procedural default, not a merits finding.
USD1041869S — Ornamental design for a bobbin and spool holder
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,041,869 (application no. US29/908137) protects the ornamental appearance of a bobbin and spool holder — a product used in sewing, embroidery, and craft applications to organise thread spools and bobbins. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of a functional article, not the functional concept itself. The scope of protection is defined by the drawings, making visual similarity the core infringement test.
In the competitive e-commerce market for sewing and craft accessories, ornamental design rights have become an increasingly important enforcement tool. Products sourced from overseas manufacturers and sold via online marketplaces frequently exhibit near-identical designs, making design patents well-suited to Schedule A enforcement campaigns. Any seller, importer, or distributor offering bobbin or spool holder products with a similar ornamental appearance to the D1,041,869 drawings faces potential infringement exposure from DPG USA.
Should you run an FTO against USD1041869S?
If your company manufactures, imports, or sells bobbin and spool holder products — or adjacent craft storage accessories — in the U.S. market, this active and enforced design patent represents a direct FTO risk. DPG USA has demonstrated willingness to file and pursue litigation, and the default judgment confirms the patent is being actively monitored and enforced. Product teams launching new SKUs in this category should conduct visual comparison analysis against the D1,041,869 drawings before market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to run automated freedom-to-operate searches across U.S. design patent databases, surfacing design conflicts by visual similarity and classification code. For the sewing accessories and craft storage segment, Eureka can map DPG USA’s full design patent portfolio, identify prior art relevant to validity challenges, and flag co-pending applications that may expand coverage — giving product teams the intelligence to design around or challenge before enforcement begins.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1041869S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois
These cases share the Schedule A enforcement model, design patent infringement claims, and N.D. Illinois venue used in DPG USA v. NX Garden.
What this case signals for the craft accessories design patent landscape
Default judgments in Schedule A actions are swift, low-cost, and increasingly common tools for e-commerce IP enforcement.
Schedule A default actions are a low-friction enforcement model
DPG USA obtained a permanent injunction and damages in under six months without contested litigation. For design patent holders in consumer products, this model — filing against unnamed online sellers, obtaining TROs, and moving to default — consistently delivers injunctive relief. Competitors and marketplace sellers should treat any DPG USA Schedule A filing as a credible enforcement signal, not a nuisance suit.
Injunctive scope extends beyond the named seller
The permanent injunction covers NX Garden’s affiliates, agents, and anyone acting in concert — and explicitly bars entity reformation to circumvent the order. This broad drafting is standard in Schedule A judgments and means that associated storefronts or successor entities face contempt exposure. Sellers operating multiple accounts or sourcing from the same supplier as NX Garden should treat this judgment as applying to their own operations.
DPG v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment against NX Garden on or before May 30, 2025. NX Garden was permanently enjoined from making, selling, or importing the infringing bobbin and spool holder products, and DPG USA was awarded $1,000 in damages under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289.
DPG USA asserted U.S. Design Patent No. D1,041,869 (application no. US29/908137), which protects the ornamental design of a bobbin and spool holder. Design patents cover the appearance of a product, not its function; infringement is assessed by visual similarity to the patent’s drawings.
A default judgment means NX Garden failed to respond to the complaint, and the court entered judgment treating the plaintiff’s infringement allegations as established. NX Garden is permanently enjoined and bound by the order. To set aside the judgment, NX Garden would need to show good cause, excusable neglect, or a meritorious defense — a high bar after final judgment is entered.
Yes. Because the default judgment was procedural — NX Garden never contested validity — no merits finding on validity was made. Third parties can still challenge D1,041,869 through inter partes review (IPR) or ex parte reexamination at the USPTO. The default judgment does not estop non-parties from raising invalidity arguments.
The $1,000 award reflects statutory damages available under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289 for design patent infringement. In default judgment contexts, courts may award modest damages when the evidentiary record is limited due to non-appearance. The more commercially significant relief is the permanent injunction, which bars NX Garden and its affiliates from continued sales of the infringing products.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.