Gong v. Schedule A Defendants: $141,000 default judgment for air pump patent infringement
Patent holder Guizhen Gong secured a default judgment of $141,000 against anonymous online marketplace sellers accused of willfully infringing design patent USD1006064S covering an air pump. The case resolved in just 49 days, with the court granting a permanent injunction and ordering third-party platforms including Amazon, Alibaba, and PayPal to freeze and transfer defendant funds.
Design patent ambush: default judgment halts online air pump counterfeiting
On October 23, 2024, Guizhen Gong filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against a class of anonymous online sellers — listed collectively as ‘The Individual, Partnership, or Unincorporated Association Identified on Schedule A’ — alleging willful infringement of design patent USD1006064S, which protects the ornamental appearance of an air pump. The case was assigned to Judge Jorge L. Alonso and prosecuted by Getech Law LLC on behalf of the plaintiff.
With no appearance or defence filed by the defendant, the court granted Gong’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment on December 11, 2024. Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, the court awarded $41,000 in compensatory damages and an additional $100,000 in enhanced damages for willful infringement, totalling $141,000. The court simultaneously entered a permanent injunction barring the defendant from any further use, sale, or distribution of infringing products bearing the asserted patent.
The 49-day resolution is consistent with the expedited timeline typical of Schedule A default actions in N.D. Illinois, where TROs and asset freezes are sought early. What remains publicly unknown is the precise identity of the defendant, the volume of infringing sales, and whether the full $41,000 compensatory award was ultimately recovered from frozen third-party platform accounts. The $100,000 enhanced damages award suggests the court accepted Gong’s characterisation of infringement as willful.
Filing to Default Judgment in 49 days
49 days — resolved significantly faster than the median Schedule A patent case in N.D. Illinois
Default judgment entered: what the $141,000 ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: liability and damages without a contested hearing
A default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond. The court accepts the well-pleaded allegations as true and proceeds to assess damages. Here, the plaintiff’s willful infringement allegations under 35 U.S.C. § 284 were uncontested, enabling the court to award both compensatory and enhanced damages without a trial. The permanent injunction is immediately enforceable.
FRCP 55 default procedureGong secures injunction, $141K damages, and platform asset freeze
Guizhen Gong obtained a permanent injunction, $141,000 in total damages, and court orders directing Amazon, Alibaba, PayPal, Wish.com, and Alipay to freeze and release funds held for the defendant. The domain transfer provisions further disrupt the defendant’s sales infrastructure. Recovery of the full compensatory sum depends on the balances held in frozen accounts at the time of the order.
Plaintiff prevails fullyDefendant in default: permanent ban and asset seizure with no appeal rights preserved
By failing to appear, the defendant forfeited the right to contest liability or damages at first instance. The permanent injunction covers all sales channels, domain names, and advertising. Third-party platforms were ordered to disable accounts within seven days. The defendant may seek to vacate the default under FRCP 60(b), but faces a high bar — particularly given the court’s willfulness finding.
Defendant fully defaultedSchedule A enforcement: platform cooperation weaponises IP against online counterfeiting
This case illustrates the effectiveness of Schedule A litigation for individual IP holders targeting anonymous e-commerce infringers. The coordinated freeze of PayPal, Amazon Pay, Alipay, and Alibaba accounts transforms the court order into a direct revenue recovery mechanism. For sellers on global marketplaces, the risk of a $100,000 enhanced damages award — even on a single infringing product design — materially elevates compliance stakes.
E-commerce IP enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guizhen Gong | Individual | Individual design patent holder — holder of air pump design patent USD1006064SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individual, Partnership, or Unincorporated Association Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers operating under pseudonymous storefronts (Schedule A defendants)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ge Lei | Attorney | Counsel for Guizhen GongSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Getech Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Guizhen GongSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jorge L. Alonso | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s default judgment order encompasses both injunctive relief and monetary damages, with the enhanced award of $100,000 on top of $41,000 compensatory damages reflecting an uncontested willfulness finding under 35 U.S.C. § 284. The breadth of the injunction — covering domain names, online marketplace accounts, and downstream third-party payment processors — is characteristic of N.D. Illinois Schedule A orders and suggests the court adopted the plaintiff’s proposed order largely wholesale. The compensatory recovery remains subject to the actual balances held in frozen accounts.
USD1006064S — ornamental design for an air pump
Patent USD1006064S is a United States design patent (application number US29/872799) covering the ornamental appearance of an air pump. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of a product — meaning competitors are free to produce functionally identical air pumps provided the overall visual impression is sufficiently distinct. The ‘USD’ designation confirms this is a design rather than utility patent, and design patents typically carry a 15-year term from grant under current U.S. patent law.
In the competitive consumer goods market — particularly on platforms such as Amazon and AliExpress — design patents on commodity products like air pumps are strategically significant precisely because the products are visually similar by nature. A registered design creates a clear basis for takedown requests and litigation. The combination of USD1006064S with Schedule A enforcement strategy allowed the rights holder to target multiple anonymous sellers simultaneously, suggesting a coordinated approach to marketplace policing.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1006064S?
Any manufacturer, importer, or online retailer selling air pumps — particularly those with visual designs similar to the product covered by USD1006064S — should assess freedom-to-operate before listing on Amazon, Alibaba, or similar platforms. The N.D. Illinois court’s willingness to enter default judgments with enhanced damages and platform-level asset freezes means that infringing listings carry disproportionate financial risk relative to the product’s likely margin.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD1006064S against your product designs, identify related design patent families held by Guizhen Gong or associated entities, and flag prior art that may bear on validity. For product teams sourcing consumer goods for online resale, a targeted FTO review before marketplace launch is a low-cost hedge against a potentially six-figure default judgment.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1006064S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable Schedule A default judgment cases in N.D. Illinois involving consumer product design patents and online marketplace infringement enforcement.
What this case signals for the consumer product design IP landscape
Schedule A default actions in N.D. Illinois are a proven enforcement lever — and this air pump case shows why platform cooperation makes them powerful.
Design patents are viable enforcement tools for individual rights holders
Guizhen Gong, an individual plaintiff rather than a large corporation, obtained $141,000 in damages and a permanent injunction in under 50 days. This demonstrates that design patents on consumer products — even seemingly commodity items like air pumps — can be leveraged aggressively against online infringers when combined with Schedule A pleading strategy.
Third-party platform orders are the real enforcement mechanism
The court’s orders to Amazon, Alibaba, PayPal, and Wish.com to freeze and transfer defendant funds within seven days mean that enforcement does not depend on locating a physical defendant. For IP holders monitoring marketplace infringement, securing these platform-level injunctions is often more valuable than the damages award itself.
Gong v Individual — key questions answered
The court entered a default judgment in favour of plaintiff Guizhen Gong on December 11, 2024. The defendant failed to appear, and the court awarded $41,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in enhanced damages for willful infringement of design patent USD1006064S, totalling $141,000. A permanent injunction was also entered covering all sales channels and online marketplace accounts.
USD1006064S is a United States design patent (application no. US29/872799) covering the ornamental appearance of an air pump. Design patents protect the visual characteristics of a product rather than its function, and carry a 15-year term from grant. The ‘USD’ prefix confirms its status as a design rather than utility patent.
The court awarded damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Compensatory damages of $41,000 were awarded for sales through the defendant’s internet store, with an additional $100,000 in enhanced damages reflecting a finding of willful infringement — standard in default proceedings where the defendant’s failure to appear is treated as admitting the plaintiff’s allegations, including willfulness.
Schedule A proceedings allow a plaintiff to sue multiple anonymous online sellers simultaneously by identifying them collectively in a sealed schedule rather than by name. This approach, common in N.D. Illinois, is designed to prevent defendants from destroying evidence or moving assets before a TRO or asset freeze can be obtained. The identities are typically revealed only after protective orders are in place.
The defaulting defendant may seek to vacate the default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) by demonstrating good cause, a meritorious defence, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff. However, the standard is demanding, and the court’s willfulness finding on uncontested pleadings makes a successful 60(b) motion unlikely without compelling evidence of excusable neglect or a substantive invalidity defence against USD1006064S.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.