Introduction: Default Judgment Secured for Flying Orb Toy Design Patent

In a swift 134-day resolution, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a comprehensive default judgment in favor of patent holder Gulan Liao against more than 70 e-commerce defendants operating across major online marketplaces. Case No. 1:23-cv-15435, closed March 12, 2024, centered on U.S. Design Patent USD891,522 — covering the ornamental design of a toy aircraft commercially recognized as the “Flying Orb.”

The case exemplifies a well-established but increasingly critical litigation model: a single IP holder pursuing dozens of anonymous, largely China-based online sellers simultaneously through a coordinated “Schedule A” complaint strategy. With no defendant appearing to contest the claims, the court granted default judgment, permanent injunctions, profits-based damages, and asset freezing orders across platforms including Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, and Wish.com.

For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in the consumer toy space, this outcome offers pointed lessons on design patent enforcement, e-commerce infringement risk, and the operational mechanics of multi-defendant litigation.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This case involved U.S. Design Patent USD891,522, covering the ornamental design of a toy aircraft. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional appearance of a product. USD891,522 covers the specific aesthetic configuration of the Flying Orb toy.

• • US D891,522 — Ornamental design for a toy aircraft (the “Flying Orb”)
• • **Issue Date:** July 28, 2020
• • **Claim:** The single ornamental design claim — “the ornamental design for a toy aircraft, as shown and described”

The Accused Products

Defendants were alleged to have sold toy aircraft products replicating the Flying Orb Design through their respective online marketplace stores and domain names — without authorization from Gulan Liao. The commercial significance is notable: Flying Orb-style hover toys represent a high-volume, low-cost consumer electronics segment heavily populated by competing Chinese manufacturers and third-party marketplace sellers.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case was filed in the **Northern District of Illinois**, a preferred venue for Schedule A patent and trademark enforcement actions due to its established procedural familiarity with multi-defendant e-commerce cases, efficient TRO/preliminary injunction practice, and willingness to authorize electronic service on foreign defendants.

**Chief Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.** presided over the matter. The court authorized service via electronic publication and email — a critical procedural mechanism in cross-border e-commerce enforcement where physical service on hundreds of international sellers is impractical.

The 134-day resolution from filing to final judgment is notably fast, driven entirely by defendants’ collective failure to appear. The plaintiff properly completed service, obtained a preliminary injunction early in the proceedings, and moved for default when no defendant responded — a textbook execution of the Schedule A litigation playbook.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The court granted **default judgment** in full against all non-dismissed Defaulting Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. The judgment includes:

• • **Permanent Injunction:** Defendants permanently enjoined from selling, offering for sale, or importing any product infringing the Flying Orb Design (USD891,522), and from aiding or abetting infringement.
• • **Profits-Based Damages:** Awarded pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, individualized per defendant per Schedule A.
• • **Asset Freeze & Transfer:** Third-party payment processors — including PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, Ant Financial, and Wish.com — ordered to freeze and release defendant funds to plaintiff within 14 days.
• • **Domain Name Transfer/Disabling:** Domain registrars directed to transfer or disable defendant domain names within 7 days.
• • **Marketplace Account Suspension:** Platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, and Dhgate ordered to cease operating defendant seller accounts.
• • **Surety Bond Released:** The $80,000 surety bond posted by Gulan Liao returned upon judgment.

Specific per-defendant damages figures are identified on Schedule A to the judgment; aggregate total was not disclosed in the public order text.

Verdict Cause Analysis

Liability was established through **deemed admission** — the legal consequence of default. With no defendant contesting validity or infringement, the court accepted the complaint’s allegations as uncontroverted. The court found sufficient basis to conclude defendants directly and/or indirectly infringed USD891,522 under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

The procedural turning point was the preliminary injunction obtained early in the case, which froze defendant assets before any seller could liquidate marketplace balances — a strategically essential move in e-commerce design patent enforcement where defendants routinely disappear or transfer funds upon receiving notice.

Legal Significance

This case reinforces several important principles for **toy and consumer electronics design patent litigation**:

• • Default judgment is a viable enforcement mechanism against non-appearing foreign e-commerce defendants when service is properly effectuated electronically.
• • 35 U.S.C. § 284 profits awards are available in design patent cases and can be applied per-defendant in multi-seller actions.
• • Coordinated third-party provider orders — covering registrars, payment processors, and marketplaces simultaneously — are routinely granted in Northern District of Illinois Schedule A cases.
• • The preliminary injunction/asset freeze combination is the enforcement core of this strategy, preventing dissipation before judgment.

Strategic Takeaways

Industry & Competitive Implications

The Flying Orb design patent enforcement campaign reflects a broader, accelerating trend: **individual inventors and small IP holders leveraging the Schedule A litigation model** to assert design patents against the long tail of Amazon and AliExpress marketplace sellers replicating successful consumer product designs.

For the toy and consumer drone/hover-toy sector specifically, this case signals that design patent holders are actively monitoring major marketplaces and deploying coordinated enforcement at scale. With Flying Orb-style products representing a multi-million-dollar category across global e-commerce platforms, the commercial stakes justify aggressive litigation postures.

The case also highlights the growing operational risk for **China-based manufacturers and exporters** selling directly on U.S. platforms: asset freeze orders extend to AliExpress, Dhgate, Alibaba, and Wish.com accounts, meaning cross-border sellers face real financial exposure even when operating entirely outside U.S. borders.

Licensing remains an underexplored alternative in this space. Companies identifying potential design overlap before litigation — and proactively seeking licenses — avoid the reputational and financial costs of default judgment and account suspension.