DPG USA Inc. v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Bobbin Holder Design Patent
DPG USA Inc. secured a default judgment in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous online marketplace sellers infringing design patent USD1041869S, which covers bobbin and spool holder products. The court awarded $12,313.60 in damages and imposed a permanent injunction across major e-commerce platforms — resolved in just 121 days.
Design patent ambush: DPG targets online counterfeit spool sellers
On 30 November 2024, DPG USA Inc. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a class of anonymous defendants — identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — alleging infringement of design patent USD1041869S (application no. US29/908137), which protects the ornamental design of bobbin and spool holder products. The Schedule A complaint format is a well-established litigation strategy targeting networks of overseas online marketplace sellers simultaneously.
No defendant appeared or responded, prompting DPG to move for entry of default and default judgment. On 31 March 2025, Judge LaShonda A. Hunt granted the motion in full. The court awarded $12,313.60 in damages under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289 and entered a sweeping permanent injunction covering sales on eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Amazon, Wish.com, and DHgate, with platform operators and payment processors — including PayPal, Alipay, and Amazon Pay — ordered to freeze and transfer the defendant’s funds to DPG within 14 days.
The case closed in just 121 days, consistent with the accelerated timelines typical of unopposed Schedule A default proceedings. The rapid resolution suggests the defendants either could not be meaningfully served or chose not to contest the claims — a pattern common in offshore e-commerce enforcement actions. The public record does not disclose the identities of the specific sellers named on Schedule A, nor whether any defendants subsequently sought to vacate the default judgment, leaving the full enforcement picture incomplete.
Filing to Default Judgment in 121 days
121 days — faster than the median U.S. district court patent case by several years
Default judgment entered: what the court’s order means for both parties
Default judgment: what it means when no defendant appears
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to respond to a complaint. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and proceeds to grant relief. Here, the court granted DPG’s motion in full under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, imposing both monetary damages and a permanent injunction — without any adversarial merits adjudication. The validity of USD1041869S was not challenged.
No merits contest — default onlyDPG wins full relief: damages, injunction, and frozen funds
DPG USA obtains $12,313.60 in damages recoverable directly from frozen payment processor accounts, a permanent injunction barring defendants from selling infringing bobbin and spool holders across all major online marketplaces, and ongoing authority to pursue supplemental enforcement proceedings. The judgment strengthens DPG’s ability to police its design patent against future Schedule A defendants using the same precedent.
Full relief granted to plaintiffDefaulting sellers face permanent ban and asset seizure
The defaulting defendants are permanently enjoined from selling the infringing products on any online marketplace platform. Their financial accounts held by PayPal, Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay are frozen and funds up to the damages award are transferred to DPG. Defendants retain the right to seek to vacate the default judgment, but doing so requires a showing of good cause — procedurally difficult after the window has passed.
Permanent injunction; accounts frozenPlatform-level enforcement raises stakes for marketplace sellers
The order’s direct reach to Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, and payment processors signals that design patent holders can deploy platform-level enforcement even against anonymous sellers. For e-commerce participants in craft and sewing accessories, this judgment illustrates the risk of stocking uncleared design-adjacent products. Third-party logistics and marketplace operators face mandatory compliance obligations within seven days of notice — a tight window with real operational consequences.
Platform enforcement risk elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DPG USA Inc. | Company | Consumer sewing accessories brand — holder of design patent USD1041869S for bobbin/spool holdersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships And Unicorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers 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 LaShonda A. Hunt | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s default judgment order is comprehensive and operational in scope, going beyond a nominal damages award. By directing third-party platforms and payment processors to act within seven to fourteen calendar days, the order transforms a civil judgment into an immediate commercial disruption for the defaulting sellers. The damages figure of $12,313.60 awarded under §§ 284 and 289 suggests calculation based on the defendant’s profits or a reasonable royalty, consistent with design patent remedies. Because no defendant appeared, the validity and scope of USD1041869S were not adjudicated on the merits — the judgment binds only the defaulting parties and does not estop future challenges by other defendants.
USD1041869S — ornamental design for a bobbin and spool holder
USD1041869S (application no. US29/908137) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a bobbin and spool holder — a sewing accessories product used to organise thread spools and bobbins. Design patents protect visual and aesthetic characteristics rather than functional features, granting the holder the right to exclude others from making, selling, or importing products with substantially similar ornamental designs. The patent’s application number prefix ’29/’ confirms it was filed as a design patent application with the USPTO.
In the sewing and crafting accessories market, design patents on organiser and storage products are increasingly used as enforcement tools against manufacturers of visually similar competing products, particularly those sourced from overseas and sold through online marketplaces. The commercial significance of USD1041869S lies not in blocking a novel technology but in controlling a specific product aesthetic within a competitive category. Any company sourcing, manufacturing, or listing bobbin holders with a similar visual profile in the U.S. market faces infringement exposure under this patent.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1041869S?
If your company designs, sources, imports, or sells bobbin holders, spool organizers, or visually similar sewing storage accessories for the U.S. market, USD1041869S warrants a freedom-to-operate review. Because the patent protects ornamental design — not function — even products with different mechanisms but a similar overall visual appearance could fall within its scope. This risk is heightened for businesses selling through Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, or other platforms that have already received enforcement orders in this case.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual and claim scope of USD1041869S against your product designs, identify prior art that may support a design patent invalidity argument, and surface related design filings by DPG USA that may indicate a broader enforcement portfolio. Running an FTO before launch is significantly less costly than defending a Schedule A default judgment action — where the absence of timely response can result in permanent account bans and frozen funds within weeks of filing.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1041869S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent enforcement cases in the Northern District of Illinois
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent infringement cases filed in the Northern District of Illinois targeting online marketplace sellers of consumer goods.
What this case signals for the sewing accessories IP enforcement landscape
DPG’s rapid default judgment illustrates how design patents can be used as scalable enforcement tools against online marketplace networks.
Schedule A tactics are now standard for design patent enforcement
Filing against anonymous ‘Schedule A’ defendants in the Northern District of Illinois has become a preferred strategy for brand owners targeting offshore e-commerce infringers. The court’s willingness to grant default judgment within 121 days — including platform and payment freezes — confirms this venue remains highly efficient for IP enforcement against non-appearing defendants.
Design patents in consumer goods carry real injunctive reach
USD1041869S is a design patent, meaning it protects ornamental appearance rather than function. Yet the court’s permanent injunction spans every major global marketplace platform. Companies selling bobbin holders, spool organizers, or visually similar sewing accessories should treat existing design patents as a genuine FTO risk — not just utility patents — before listing products.
DPG v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in favour of DPG USA Inc. on 31 March 2025. The court awarded $12,313.60 in damages under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289 and issued a permanent injunction barring the defaulting defendants from selling infringing bobbin and spool holder products on major online marketplaces including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Wish.com.
The asserted patent is USD1041869S (application no. US29/908137), a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design of a bobbin and spool holder product. Design patents protect visual appearance rather than functional features, and infringement is assessed based on whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product substantially similar to the patented design.
The order requires platforms including eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Amazon, and Wish.com to cease operating the defendant’s marketplace accounts within seven days. Payment processors including PayPal, Alipay, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay are ordered to freeze and transfer funds from the defendant’s accounts — up to the $12,313.60 damages award — to DPG within 14 days of receiving notice of the order.
Yes. A party subject to a default judgment may move to vacate it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) by demonstrating good cause — typically showing the default was not wilful, that a meritorious defence exists, and that vacating would not prejudice the plaintiff. However, this is procedurally difficult after funds have already been transferred pursuant to the court’s order.
The 121-day resolution is consistent with the Schedule A litigation format, where the defendants are anonymous online sellers who typically do not appear or respond to the complaint. Without any defendant participation, there is no discovery, no claim construction, and no merits briefing — the plaintiff simply moves for default and default judgment once the response deadline passes, allowing courts to resolve these cases in a matter of months.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.