Erchonia v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Green Laser Patents
Erchonia Corporation, holder of two FDA-cleared low-level laser therapy patents, secured a permanent injunction and default judgment against anonymous online marketplace sellers within 105 days of filing. The court ordered Alibaba and third-party platforms to disable infringing listings within seven calendar days.
Erchonia wins default judgment over counterfeit green laser devices
Filed on 3 September 2025 before Judge Sunil R. Harjani in the Northern District of Illinois, this action saw Erchonia Corporation LLC assert two patents — US7947067B2 and US9149650B2 — against unnamed partnerships and unincorporated associations operating through online marketplace accounts. The products at issue were green laser machines allegedly sold without Erchonia’s authorisation, competing directly with the plaintiff’s proprietary low-level laser therapy devices.
The case resolved on 17 December 2025 via default judgment — a procedural outcome entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond. With no defence mounted, the court granted Erchonia’s motion in full, permanently enjoining the defaulting defendant from making, selling, advertising, or distributing any infringing products, and ordering third-party platforms including Alibaba to cease providing services to infringing seller accounts within seven days of notice.
Resolution in 105 days is consistent with the accelerated trajectory typical of Schedule A enforcement actions, where plaintiffs commonly seek and obtain preliminary injunctions early, then convert them to permanent relief upon default. The release of the $1,000 bond to plaintiff’s counsel signals the court’s confirmation that injunctive relief is now self-sustaining under the default judgment. The identities of the actual sellers and the full commercial scale of the alleged infringement remain undisclosed on the public record.
Filing to Default Judgment in 105 days
105 days — faster than the N.D. Illinois civil median for patent cases
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: no defence, full relief granted
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true. Here, the defaulting defendant made no appearance, so Erchonia’s infringement allegations and patent ownership claims were deemed established without contest. This is distinct from a merits ruling — the court did not examine validity or claim scope in depth.
Uncontested judgmentErchonia secures permanent injunction and platform enforcement
The judgment gives Erchonia broad injunctive relief: the defaulting defendant and any acting in concert are permanently barred from making, selling, or distributing infringing green laser products. Crucially, third-party providers — including Alibaba — must disable associated marketplace accounts and advertisements within seven days of notice, giving Erchonia direct enforcement leverage against the distribution infrastructure, not just the sellers.
Permanent injunction grantedDefaulting sellers face permanent market exclusion
By failing to appear, the defendant forfeited any opportunity to contest patent validity, claim scope, or the scope of injunctive relief. The permanent injunction now bars all future sales of infringing products, and the court explicitly preserved Erchonia’s ability to identify additional accounts and initiate supplemental proceedings — including asset discovery — by email notice alone.
Permanent market banPlatform-level takedowns raise the cost of copycat laser sales
The seven-day platform compliance window set against Alibaba and equivalent marketplaces signals that Erchonia’s enforcement strategy extends beyond individual sellers to the sales infrastructure itself. For the low-level laser therapy sector, this suggests that IP holders with cleared, patented devices can use Schedule A actions to systematically disrupt grey-market and counterfeit supply chains at the marketplace level, rather than pursuing individual infringers one at a time.
Marketplace-level enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Erchonia Corporation LLC | Company | Medical laser device company — holder of US7947067B2 and US9149650B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers of allegedly infringing green laser machinesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Randolph Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Erchonia Corporation LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven G. Kalberg | Attorney | Counsel for Erchonia Corporation LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Direction IP law | Law Firm | Representing Erchonia Corporation LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sunil R. Harjani | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment is comprehensive in scope: it permanently enjoins not only the named defaulting defendant but all persons acting in concert, and extends enforcement obligations to third-party platform providers with actual notice. The court’s simultaneous release of the preliminary injunction bond confirms the default judgment supersedes prior interim relief, leaving no gap in coverage. Because this is a default rather than a contested merits ruling, patent validity and claim construction were not adjudicated — the injunction’s enforceability against non-defaulting parties in future proceedings would require fresh litigation.
US7947067B2 & US9149650B2 — Low-level green laser therapy devices
US7947067B2 (application US11/409408) and US9149650B2 (application US14/336401) protect Erchonia’s proprietary green laser technology in the low-level laser therapy (LLLT) space. Erchonia is widely recognised as a pioneer in FDA-cleared LLLT devices, and these patents cover the specific configurations and methods that distinguish its clinical and consumer green laser products from competing devices. The staggered application dates suggest a deliberate continuation strategy to extend coverage across product generations.
In the medical device sector, FDA clearance combined with robust patent protection creates a significant competitive moat. Erchonia’s enforcement of these two patents against online marketplace sellers suggests the company is actively defending against lower-cost copycat products that could undercut its clinical distribution channels. For competitors developing LLLT devices, both patents represent active enforcement risk — particularly for products using green laser wavelengths and similar therapeutic configurations sold through e-commerce platforms.
Should you run an FTO against US7947067B2 and US9149650B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing green laser therapy devices — whether for clinical, wellness, or consumer markets — should treat these patents as live enforcement risks. Erchonia’s demonstrated willingness to pursue Schedule A default judgments means infringement exposure is not theoretical: marketplace sellers have already been permanently enjoined. R&D teams designing LLLT devices using green laser wavelengths should verify that their configurations do not read on the claims of either patent before commercialising.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim boundaries of US7947067B2 and US9149650B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may affect claim scope, and flag related continuations or family members that could extend Erchonia’s protection. Run a targeted FTO before product launch or when entering e-commerce channels where enforcement actions like this one have demonstrated rapid and broad injunctive outcomes.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7947067B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent cases in low-level laser therapy
Explore comparable Schedule A enforcement actions involving medical device and LLLT patents in the Northern District of Illinois and related federal courts.
What this case signals for the low-level laser therapy IP landscape
Erchonia’s swift default judgment illustrates how Schedule A enforcement is reshaping patent protection for medical device IP in online marketplaces.
Schedule A actions are an effective counterfeit-suppression tool for medical devices
By targeting anonymous marketplace sellers collectively under Schedule A, Erchonia avoided the cost and delay of individual identification while securing broad, platform-enforceable relief. For medical device IP holders facing mass online infringement, this approach — preliminary injunction followed by default judgment — consistently delivers faster outcomes than conventional litigation tracks.
Platform takedown orders shift enforcement burden to intermediaries
The court’s explicit inclusion of Alibaba and unnamed third-party providers in the injunction creates a compliance obligation for the marketplace, not just the seller. This is strategically significant: it means Erchonia can request account disablement and ad removal directly from platforms, bypassing the need to locate and serve individual defendants for each new infringing listing.
Erchonia v Partnerships — key questions answered
The N.D. Illinois court entered a default judgment and permanent injunction against the defaulting defendant, barring all making, selling, and distribution of infringing green laser products. Third-party platforms including Alibaba were ordered to disable associated accounts and advertisements within seven days of notice.
Erchonia asserted two patents: US7947067B2 (application US11/409408) and US9149650B2 (application US14/336401), both covering green laser therapy devices in the low-level laser therapy category.
Schedule A refers to a litigation strategy where a plaintiff files against a list of anonymous or pseudonymous defendants — typically online marketplace sellers — whose identities are disclosed in a sealed schedule. It allows patent holders to pursue mass online infringement efficiently without identifying each defendant individually at filing.
The defaulting defendant failed to appear or respond to the complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, courts may enter default judgment when a defendant does not defend. The court accepted Erchonia’s allegations as true and granted the full relief requested, including a permanent injunction and platform takedown orders.
No. A default judgment does not constitute a merits adjudication of patent validity or claim construction. The court did not examine whether the patents are valid or what the precise scope of the claims covers. The judgment is binding on the defaulting defendant but does not create controlling precedent on validity questions for future challengers.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.