Ge v. Schedule A Defendants: Design Patent Default Judgment on Ball Gun (D1,018,709)
Patent holder Along Ge secured a default judgment against a network of anonymous e-commerce sellers accused of infringing U.S. Design Patent No. D1,018,709, covering a ball gun product. The Illinois Northern District Court awarded $10,000 per defaulting defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 284, with asset freezes ordered across platforms including Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Alibaba — all within 308 days of filing.
Design patent holder wins default judgment against anonymous e-commerce sellers
On August 27, 2024, plaintiff Along Ge filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against an anonymous network of e-commerce sellers — identified only through seller aliases listed on Schedule A — alleging infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D1,018,709, which covers the ornamental design of a ball gun product. The case is representative of a well-established enforcement strategy in which design patent holders target overseas sellers operating across marketplace platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Temu, Alibaba, Walmart, DHgate, Etsy, and Wish.com.
Because the defendants failed to answer or otherwise appear, the court entered default and subsequently default judgment on July 1, 2025. The final judgment awarded plaintiff a reasonable royalty of $10,000 per defaulting defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 284 — the statutory damages provision for patent infringement. The court simultaneously ordered third-party payment processors and marketplace operators to freeze and release defendant funds up to the awarded amount within seven calendar days, giving the judgment immediate practical bite even against anonymous overseas sellers.
The 308-day resolution timeline is consistent with N.D. Illinois Schedule A default proceedings, which typically conclude without contested discovery or merits briefing. The outcome likely reflects both the difficulty defendants face responding to early asset freezes — secured here via a temporary restraining order — and the plaintiff’s strategy of leveraging e-service and electronic publication to satisfy notice requirements. The public record does not disclose the total number of defaulting defendants on Schedule A, leaving the aggregate damages amount undisclosed.
Filing to Default Judgment in 308 days
308 days — faster than the median N.D. Ill. design patent case, consistent with uncontested default proceedings
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: what it means when defendants don’t appear
A default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 is entered when a defendant fails to answer or otherwise respond after proper service. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true. Here, plaintiff satisfied service through electronic publication and email — a method N.D. Illinois courts routinely approve in Schedule A cases involving anonymous overseas sellers. The judgment is final and enforceable.
Plaintiff prevails on the merits by defaultGe secures enforceable damages and asset freeze across major platforms
Along Ge obtained a $10,000 per-defendant damages award under 35 U.S.C. § 284, plus a permanent injunction barring further sales of the infringing ball gun product. Critically, the court ordered payment processors — including PayPal, Amazon Pay, Alipay, and others — to release frozen funds directly to plaintiff within seven days of the order, converting the judgment into immediate cash recovery without needing to chase defendants directly.
Immediate asset recovery via third-party freezeDefaulting sellers face frozen accounts and permanent injunction
Defendants who failed to appear are now subject to a permanent injunction, account freezes across all major e-commerce and payment platforms, and a $10,000 damages liability per seller alias. Their marketplace listings must be disabled upon notice. Because judgment is final, defendants’ typical recourse is a motion to set aside default — which requires showing good cause, a meritorious defence, and lack of prejudice to plaintiff, a high bar in anonymous seller cases.
Permanent injunction; accounts frozenSchedule A tactics remain a potent weapon for design patent holders
This outcome illustrates why Schedule A litigation has become a dominant enforcement vehicle for consumer product design patents. The combination of anonymous defendants, ex parte TROs, platform-level asset freezes, and e-service creates structural advantages for patent holders — particularly against overseas sellers who have limited incentive or capacity to defend U.S. proceedings. Marketplace operators, sellers, and importers of products with similar ornamental designs to D1,018,709 face meaningful infringement risk if they do not conduct design clearance searches.
High infringement risk for similar designsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | John Doe | Individual | Design patent holder; inventor asserting U.S. Patent No. D1,018,709 (ball gun ornamental design)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Along Ge | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers operating under aliases on platforms including Amazon, eBay, Temu, AliExpress, and AlibabaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zhiwei Hua | Attorney | Counsel for John DoeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Concord & Sage Pc | Law Firm | Representing John DoeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Franklin U. Valderrama | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s final judgment language — accepting plaintiff’s unrebutted assertions and entering damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 — is characteristic of a default judgment where no merits contest occurred. The $10,000 per-defendant figure reflects a reasonable royalty benchmark, not statutory enhanced damages, suggesting the court did not find wilfulness independently required for the award. The injunction’s reach across named platform operators and payment processors is broad, consistent with N.D. Illinois practice in Schedule A cases. The judgment is final and immediately enforceable.
USD D1,018,709 — Ball Gun Ornamental Design Patent
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,018,709 (application no. 29/874,825) protects the ornamental appearance — not the functional mechanics — of a ball gun product. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the novel, non-obvious visual characteristics of an article of manufacture as depicted in the patent’s drawings. The scope of protection is defined by what is shown in those figures. Design patents have a term of 15 years from grant and do not require maintenance fees, making them a cost-effective and durable tool for consumer product IP protection.
Design patents for consumer toy and recreational products have become a primary enforcement mechanism against overseas e-commerce sellers, particularly those operating on Amazon, Temu, AliExpress, and DHgate. Because the infringement test is whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design, even close visual approximations can infringe. Any seller manufacturing, importing, or listing ball gun products with ornamental features resembling those in D1,018,709 should obtain a design clearance opinion before entering the U.S. market.
Should you run an FTO analysis against U.S. Design Patent D1,018,709?
Any company sourcing, importing, or selling ball gun products on U.S. e-commerce platforms — including Amazon, eBay, Walmart Marketplace, or Temu — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against D1,018,709. This case demonstrates that design patent holders are actively monitoring and enforcing against sellers of visually similar products, and the default judgment mechanism means enforcement can proceed even without a contested merits hearing.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map the ornamental design landscape around ball gun and projectile toy products, identify overlapping design patents by visual similarity, and assess clearance risk before committing to a product launch or continued import programme. Given the seven-day asset-freeze window in this order, proactive clearance is significantly less costly than reactive litigation defence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1018709S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving design patent enforcement against anonymous e-commerce sellers in the Northern District of Illinois, covering consumer product ornamental designs.
What this case signals for the consumer product design patent landscape
The Ge v. Schedule A default judgment reinforces the power of design patent enforcement against e-commerce networks — and the systemic risk to sellers who ignore U.S. proceedings.
E-service plus TRO creates structural leverage over anonymous sellers
N.D. Illinois consistently approves electronic service and publication notice in Schedule A cases. Combined with an early asset-freeze TRO served on payment processors, this deprives defendants of operational funds before they can mount a defence. Design patent holders in the consumer products space should assess whether this enforcement template applies to their IP.
Platform operators face seven-day compliance windows under default orders
Amazon, eBay, Temu, Alibaba, PayPal, and peers are required by name in this order to disable listings and release funds within seven calendar days. Marketplace legal and compliance teams tracking N.D. Illinois Schedule A dockets should monitor these orders to manage operational exposure and avoid contempt risk.
Doe v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment on July 1, 2025, in favour of plaintiff Along Ge. The court awarded $10,000 per defaulting defendant as a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D1,018,709, and issued a permanent injunction requiring e-commerce platforms and payment processors to freeze and release defendant funds.
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,018,709 (filed as application 29/874,825) protects the ornamental design of a ball gun product. Design patents protect the visual appearance of an article, not its function. The court found defendants sold products infringing this design through e-commerce stores targeting U.S. consumers.
Schedule A cases are a litigation strategy in which a patent (or trademark) holder sues a large group of anonymous e-commerce sellers identified only through seller aliases. The plaintiff typically seeks an ex parte TRO to freeze defendant assets held by payment processors before defendants are notified. Service is effected electronically. If defendants fail to appear, default judgment is entered — as occurred in this case.
The court awarded $10,000 per defaulting defendant as a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. § 284. The judgment also ordered third-party payment processors including PayPal, Amazon Pay, Alipay, eBay, Alibaba, Ant Financial, Wish.com, DHgate, Walmart, Etsy, and Temu to release frozen funds to plaintiff within seven days. The total aggregate award depends on the number of defendants on Schedule A, which is not fully disclosed in the public record.
The judgment names eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Amazon, Wish.com, Walmart, Etsy, Temu (WhaleCo), and DHgate as marketplace platforms, and PayPal, Alipay, Ant Financial, Amazon Pay, eBay, Wish.com, DHgate, Walmart, Etsy, and Temu as payment processors required to freeze and release defendant funds. All were ordered to comply within seven calendar days of receiving the order.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.