Foreo Inc. v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Design Patents for Skincare Devices
Foreo Inc., maker of the iconic LUNA skincare and ISSA toothbrush lines, pursued over 200 online marketplace sellers for design and utility patent infringement. The Florida Southern District Court entered final default judgment in Foreo’s favour on its design patent claims — while Foreo voluntarily dismissed its utility patent count — closing the case in 258 days.
Foreo wins design patent default judgment against 200+ marketplace sellers
On September 21, 2023, Foreo Inc. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against a large Schedule A defendant class — comprising over 200 individually named online sellers operating across e-commerce marketplaces. The complaint asserted infringement of fifteen patents spanning design registrations for skin cleansers, acne pens, eye massagers, and toothbrush variants, alongside utility patents including US11633073B2 and US9578956B2 directed at oral care and skincare device functionality.
The case resolved on June 5, 2024, through two concurrent procedural acts: Foreo voluntarily dismissed Count One (the utility patent claim) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and the Court granted a motion for final default judgment on Count Two (the design patent claim). Because defendants failed to appear or respond, the default route allowed Foreo to secure an enforceable judgment without a merits trial — a common but strategically significant enforcement mechanism in Schedule A marketplace cases.
The 258-day resolution is consistent with the rapid lifecycle typical of default-judgment-driven Schedule A actions, where non-appearing defendants accelerate closure. What remains undisclosed in the public record is the quantum of damages or injunctive relief awarded, and whether any defendants subsequently moved to set aside the default. The voluntary dismissal of the utility patent claim suggests Foreo may have prioritised design enforcement — where visual comparison to its registered product forms offers a cleaner path to default relief — over the more complex obviousness and claim-scope arguments utility patents require.
Filing to Default Judgment in 258 days
258 days from filing to close — faster than the median patent case in the Southern District of Florida
Default judgment and voluntary dismissal: what the dual outcome means
Default judgment: winning without a trial
When defendants fail to appear or respond, a plaintiff may seek default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. Here, Foreo obtained final judgment on its design patent claims without any merits adjudication — the court accepted the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations as true. This is a standard but powerful enforcement tool in Schedule A actions targeting mass online infringers who typically do not engage with the litigation.
No merits trial requiredRule 41 dismissal: what the public record does and does not say
Foreo dismissed Count One (utility patent infringement) under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a unilateral voluntary dismissal filed before any defendant served an answer or summary judgment motion. The public record does not specify whether this dismissal was with or without prejudice. Under Rule 41, a first voluntary dismissal under 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is presumed without prejudice unless the notice states otherwise, but practitioners should verify the docket entry directly before drawing conclusions.
Prejudice status: verify docketNon-appearing defendants face enforceable judgment
Defendants who failed to appear now face an enforceable federal court judgment on the design patent claims. Default judgments in Schedule A cases are routinely paired with permanent injunctions and damages awards — often statutory damages of up to $150,000 per wilfully infringed design patent. Defendants retain the right to move to set aside the default under Rule 55(c), but success requires demonstrating good cause, a meritorious defence, and lack of prejudice to Foreo.
Judgment enforceable immediatelyDesign patents dominate marketplace enforcement strategy
This case exemplifies a growing enforcement pattern in which brand owners like Foreo leverage design patent portfolios — with their visual-similarity standard and wide statutory damages range — to efficiently pursue marketplace sellers at scale. Competitors and private-label sellers in the personal care device sector should treat Foreo’s registered product designs as active enforcement risks, particularly on Amazon, eBay, and similar platforms where Schedule A defendants typically operate.
High risk for marketplace sellersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Foreo Inc. | Company | Personal care device innovator — holder of USD716961S and 14 further patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | 200+ anonymous online marketplace sellers alleged to sell infringing skincare and oral care devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | 12pegleg | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | anything_here | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | bvbcuw | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | eurj18 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | gotogoodsllc | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | hgwdf625 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | jade86 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others too numerous to list: Victor Hugo Rodriguez, fasr87, Lola Beauty, unixskin, shopcom2000, JFieldsCo, Shiner Store, jiche96, Shopping Factory Store, yolandlor-0, quanbai66, zaneo, bvvfcf, LotusHaze, wallscloset04, bevjhb, shmcg-7339, ruiqi06, wisithuru_product, mhstore77, kenn.johns, AIIYME Store, fploikk, nannyrocks120, diejck, linsh0p, curbsidrandom, 9enjoyshopping, triciatre_4, fmmaoe2, dldl123123, positiveshopnr1, sbisnc, Kikuu, BellesSecrets, ramireariadn-0, derel_57, blondechick55, ldsf26, Acme Approved, Good Day, Moajaza, watchbandspot, Amazing China Products, cftgff, storageauctionpirate, dina51, slf51gs, cnydeals315, bfrda, you07, wedswty998, alpha_toner, perpv94, maxam78, plpaa, xovke, wedswty68, steffanief13, star61172, thisiskatherine, edmki, Li HB Store, Hchenyu Store, lowcost-10, bestowal, gogetter8719, nare8196, acost6169, stylemebri, alv-ala-x6hs5bo, mbz-24de, ecffl, basop6, Jones N Panda Corp, inthemeadow, erinog, cyberoutlet14, bgrft, VASYL Flagship store, LonRon Co.Ltd, XingZhouHe, thetajan, hftfcn, wenfindsmore, zhucai33, eloif69, armor_of_god, quak11, Forever Beauty House Store, takelovehome, gladidavi2, outleth74, oebristol, homematecollection, sunlin1120, cggmk, kun6, boygirlsnew-02, kinseibeauty4, beatrix2, sunken_treasure, ngyhe, ctufqi, pvbwcc, The Skin Shop, cfgtre, zwgf, JT Home Store, darknessseagull25, vmxixhs300, gufl8006, jlmays84, Childlike Innocence, actionhousebabes, vmotorv, BETA BOX, dealwithzeal, djife32, shopcrownhouse, aawqq, SkinAngelLLC, baboonia, Mg fashion love, yyi89578, zongtian, shop_purple, 2016dani86, meyanbeautymachine2, ploik, oklkuz, kiki2, healthiswealth-tyler, bxhtqb, davkpj, BOTE LLC, Quisque Ornare Inc, yanksfan12345, dawdigiacom0, rodcogroup, jg-trading, nycunitedgoods, rumaxtrade, bk18_shop, Fun-Home-914, altatac, imud39, vallimerick, ottostore, kunminghuireng Co. ltd, nadalghait0, dmcove27, jedigirl10, fswnn33, lcmj2018au, luckylemonmarket, jass2965, lovinglightcandles, fuvlkb, eclipsefastpitch2, hover8, dffrft, finelivingcollections, bttr88, cfghy, Lucky-minfan, deals4real-0, baozousports01, mark776, jkatang, ArzariBeauty, CkeyiN Official, eufaulagirl, liliooo, PaintByNumberUK, sita-ram (22), cftde, foigj55, aseel75, okif0fe, Zhou Daweidedian, migasol, tandzik9, jlyx, teresbenedic5, ddyzvy, ITME Store, yao07, youe, useeisell, Ofunuobeautymachine, szzas, emnru230, femf95f, mastertoner, bgeed, Beautiful & Bold Aesthetics LLC, artf.mo0, fitzgerald2, businessbezo, Good Choice, cffzz, smyy9, xxlb, breble66, theezay, diana11, dapperica, ccfft, luxury.china, mcenterprises_llc, mimocompr, ecmuyn, gamertechz, taiyuanhuiguaisaish-0, jguyhxz10, lsclot, Lucky Lemon Market, dslf44, anyvolume, fnilleks, Sevenstore, jobob-treasures, jemsbyjen, Fuarscs Beauty Official Store, buirnce, waggcomputer, mbz-24*de, Cao ruixin, suiningaitufuzhuangdian, adrs7 | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | solyansoutlet | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | tdbsmarketplace | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason Scott Zack | Attorney | Counsel for Foreo Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rossana Baeza | Attorney | Counsel for Foreo Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Foreo Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s judgment operates on two distinct tracks. The design patent claim (Count Two) was resolved on the merits via default — the court accepted Foreo’s well-pleaded allegations and entered judgment under Rule 58, creating an immediately enforceable order against all non-appearing defendants. The utility patent claim (Count One) was terminated by Foreo’s own Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice, meaning no court ruled on the merits of those claims. The split outcome reflects Foreo’s election to pursue the procedurally simpler design enforcement path to a clean, final judgment rather than litigate complex utility patent claims against absent defendants.
USD716961S and 14 further patents — skincare and oral care device designs
The asserted portfolio spans twelve U.S. design patents and three utility patents. The design patents — including USD716961S, USD773064S, USD698455S, USD771952S, USD776438S, USD734481S, USD760912S, USD882104S, USD774772S, USD882810S, and USD799711S — protect the ornamental appearance of Foreo’s skincare cleansers, acne pens, eye massagers, and toothbrush variants. The utility patents (US11633073B2, US9578956B2, US9889065B2, and US10349788B1) cover functional innovations in oral care and skincare device mechanics, though these claims were ultimately dismissed before judgment.
Foreo’s portfolio reflects a deliberate IP architecture: layering visual design protection over product forms with utility patents covering underlying technology. This strategy creates overlapping enforcement rights and complicates design-arounds for competitors. For the broader personal care device market — particularly brands manufacturing LUNA-style silicone cleansers or ISSA-style sonic toothbrushes — Foreo’s active design registrations represent a significant barrier to visual product similarity, with enforcement capacity demonstrated by this mass-defendant action.
Should you run an FTO against Foreo’s design and utility patent portfolio?
Any company developing or sourcing silicone facial cleansers, acne treatment devices, eye massagers, or sonic toothbrushes for sale on U.S. e-commerce platforms should treat Foreo’s design patent portfolio as a primary FTO target. The breadth of registered designs — covering multiple product forms across skincare and oral care — means that even superficially distinct products may fall within the ornamental claim scope of one or more registered designs. Private-label brands and OEM manufacturers supplying U.S. marketplace sellers face particularly acute exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s visual and functional features against Foreo’s active design and utility registrations, identify claim scope boundaries, and flag prosecution history that may limit enforcement reach. Given that Foreo dropped its utility claims in this action, Eureka’s prior art and prosecution history analysis tools can help assess whether those utility patents present a genuine litigation threat or a narrower scope than originally filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0716961S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A enforcement cases in personal care devices
Related Schedule A mass-defendant actions asserting design patents for skincare and oral care devices in U.S. district courts — including the Southern District of Florida.
What this case signals for the personal care device IP landscape
Foreo’s Schedule A default judgment strategy offers a blueprint — and a warning — for IP teams across the skincare and oral care sector.
Design patent portfolios are Foreo’s primary enforcement weapon
With twelve design patents asserted alongside three utility patents, and the utility claims ultimately dropped, Foreo’s enforcement strategy leans heavily on design rights. For competitors and OEM manufacturers, this signals that product form and visual identity — not just functional features — are the central IP battleground in personal care devices.
Schedule A actions create systemic risk for marketplace sellers
The use of a Schedule A complaint against 200+ defendants is a deliberate litigation architecture. Sellers listing skincare cleansers, acne devices, or toothbrush designs visually similar to Foreo products on any major marketplace face a credible default-judgment risk — particularly if they do not monitor incoming litigation and respond promptly.
Foreo v Individuals — key questions answered
The Southern District of Florida entered final default judgment in favour of Foreo on its design patent claims (Count Two) on June 5, 2024. Foreo separately dismissed its utility patent claims (Count One) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The case was filed September 21, 2023 and closed after 258 days.
The public record does not state a specific reason. Foreo filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before any defendant appeared. This may reflect a strategic decision to pursue the cleaner, faster design patent enforcement path to default judgment rather than litigate complex utility patent claim construction issues against absent defendants.
Foreo asserted twelve design patents including USD716961S, USD773064S, USD698455S, USD771952S, USD776438S, USD734481S, USD760912S, USD882104S, USD774772S, USD882810S, USD799711S, and USD776438S, covering the ornamental designs of its skin cleansers, acne pens, eye massagers, and toothbrush variants. Three utility patents were also initially asserted but voluntarily dismissed.
A default judgment is entered when defendants fail to appear or respond. The court treats the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and may award injunctive relief and damages without a merits trial. In design patent cases, damages can include the infringer’s total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Defendants may move to set aside a default under Rule 55(c) by showing good cause, a meritorious defence, and absence of prejudice to the plaintiff.
The accused products included acne pens, eye massagers, skin cleansers, skin massagers, toothbrushes, toothbrush heads, toothbrushes with curved heads, and toothbrushes with biofilm-removing touch points — all categories in which Foreo holds active design registrations corresponding to its LUNA and ISSA product lines.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.