Shunhechuanmei v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Metal Nibbler Design Patent
Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. pursued a Schedule A infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois over design patent USD1006076S, covering a metal nibbler drill attachment sold across major online marketplaces. The court granted default judgment within 191 days, issuing a permanent injunction and ordering disgorgement of defendants’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
Schedule A design patent action ends in swift default for Chinese IP holder
Filed on 19 February 2025 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings, this case pits Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. — a Chinese product manufacturer — against an anonymous group of online marketplace sellers collectively designated as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ The asserted patent, USD1006076S (application no. US29/862020), is a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a metal nibbler drill attachment, a tool used for cutting sheet metal.
The case closed on 29 August 2025 via default judgment after the defendants failed to appear or contest the claims. Judge Cummings granted Shunhechuanmei’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in full, issuing a permanent injunction that bars defendants from selling, marketing, or distributing infringing products across platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Temu, Wish, and DHgate. Damages were awarded as disgorgement of defendants’ profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289 — the design patent profits statute — with restrained marketplace funds ordered released directly to Shunhechuanmei within 14 days.
A 191-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated timelines typical of Schedule A enforcement actions, where anonymous defendants rarely contest proceedings. The default outcome suggests defendants either could not be effectively served or made a calculated decision not to engage. The public record does not disclose the total profits awarded per defendant; the verdict references an attached table, which is not reproduced in the available docket text. What remains unknown is the aggregate damages recovered and whether any defendants subsequently moved to vacate the judgment.
Filing to Default Judgment in 191 days
191-day resolution — faster than median N.D. Illinois patent case
Default judgment granted: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: plaintiff wins without a merits contest
A default judgment arises when defendants fail to appear or respond. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and may grant all requested relief. Here, Judge Cummings treated the infringement of USD1006076S as established and awarded both injunctive relief and profit disgorgement under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Defendants retain the right to move to vacate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), but face a high burden showing good cause.
No merits adjudicationShunhechuanmei obtains permanent injunction and profit disgorgement
The ruling gives Shunhechuanmei a permanent injunction enforceable across all named online marketplaces — Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, Temu, Wish, and DHgate — as well as direct access to frozen marketplace funds. Under § 289, total infringer profits (not just reasonable royalty) are recoverable for design patent infringement, potentially making this a highly effective enforcement vehicle. The $34,000 surety bond is also released. Shunhechuanmei retains supplemental enforcement rights under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69.
Plaintiff win — full relief grantedDefaulting sellers face frozen accounts and permanent marketplace bans
Defendants who failed to appear now face permanent injunctions, frozen and transferred financial balances, and disabled marketplace listings. Third-party platforms are compelled to comply within 7–14 days of the order. Any defendant wishing to challenge the judgment must file a Rule 55(c) motion demonstrating good cause — including a meritorious defence — a standard that is difficult to meet post-default. Continued sales of the infringing nibbler design risk contempt proceedings.
Accounts frozen — platforms ordered to complySchedule A design patent enforcement signals risk for marketplace resellers
This outcome is consistent with a broader wave of Schedule A IP enforcement actions filed in N.D. Illinois, targeting anonymous e-commerce sellers of consumer hardware and tools. The use of § 289 profit disgorgement — which captures the infringer’s total article profits — makes design patents a high-leverage enforcement tool against low-cost marketplace competitors. Resellers of sheet metal working tools, drill accessories, and adjacent categories should treat this ruling as a signal that design patent holders are actively monitoring and enforcing on major platforms.
Design patent enforcement risk elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer hardware manufacturer — holder of design patent USD1006076SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified collectively on Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Depeng Bi | Attorney | Counsel for Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Konrad Val Sherinian | Attorney | Counsel for Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC | Law Firm | Representing Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeffrey I Cummings | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order is comprehensive in scope, permanently enjoining defendants across all major U.S.-accessible online marketplaces and compelling third-party platforms to act within tight timeframes. Critically, damages are awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 289 — the design patent total-profits statute — rather than lost profits or reasonable royalty, reflecting the plaintiff’s strategic choice of a high-recovery vehicle. Because no defendant appeared, there was no merits adjudication on validity or infringement; the judgment rests entirely on uncontested allegations. Defendants retain the procedural right to seek vacatur under Rule 55(c), though success is uncommon absent a compelling defence.
USD1006076S — Metal Nibbler Drill Attachment Ornamental Design
USD1006076S is a U.S. design patent, filed under application number US29/862020, protecting the ornamental appearance of a metal nibbler drill attachment — a hand-held power tool accessory used to cut sheet metal, roofing, and automotive bodywork. Design patents protect the visual characteristics of an article of manufacture, not its functional operation. This designation means competitors may produce functionally equivalent nibblers provided their ornamental design is not substantially similar to Shunhechuanmei’s protected design as assessed under the ordinary observer test.
Metal nibbler drill attachments occupy a competitive, high-volume segment of the online power tool accessories market, dominated by Chinese manufacturers selling through Amazon, AliExpress, and Temu. A design patent in this space provides a targeted enforcement mechanism against copycat listings that replicate the product’s visual identity. The § 289 profit disgorgement remedy — available only for design patents — significantly amplifies the commercial value of this protection, making USD1006076S a strategically important asset in Shunhechuanmei’s portfolio for marketplace enforcement.
Should your product be cleared against USD1006076S?
Any company sourcing, importing, or reselling metal nibbler drill attachments — or visually similar sheet metal cutting tool accessories — for the U.S. market should assess whether their product’s ornamental design is substantially similar to USD1006076S under the ordinary observer standard. This is particularly urgent for sellers on Amazon, eBay, Temu, AliExpress, and Wish, all of which are explicitly named in this enforcement order and have demonstrated compliance with platform-level injunctions.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to run design patent clearance searches against USD1006076S and related application US29/862020, identify any continuation or family patents, and map the visual claim scope against your own product designs. Eureka’s AI-assisted analysis can flag ornamental similarity risk before a product is listed — reducing the chance of account freezes, platform bans, and profit disgorgement liability.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1006076S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in N.D. Illinois consumer hardware
Cases involving Schedule A defendants and design patent enforcement for consumer hardware tools in the Northern District of Illinois, with default judgment outcomes.
What this case signals for the consumer hardware IP landscape
Schedule A design patent actions are fast, high-impact, and platform-enforceable — key intelligence for any company selling tools online.
§ 289 profit disgorgement makes design patents potent against marketplace sellers
Unlike utility patents, design patents allow recovery of the infringer’s total profits on the infringing article — not merely a reasonable royalty. Combined with the speed of default proceedings, this makes design patent enforcement through Schedule A actions a cost-efficient mechanism for Chinese IP holders protecting hardware products sold on Amazon, Temu, and AliExpress.
Platform cooperation is now a structural feature of design patent enforcement
The order compels Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, Temu, Wish, and DHgate to freeze accounts and disable listings within 7 days. This platform-enforcement model reduces reliance on individual defendant service and is increasingly standard in N.D. Illinois Schedule A cases — a pattern product teams and marketplace sellers should factor into their IP risk assessments.
Guangdongsheng v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois granted a default judgment in favour of Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. on 29 August 2025. The court issued a permanent injunction against all defaulting defendants and ordered disgorgement of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 for infringement of design patent USD1006076S covering a metal nibbler drill attachment.
Section 289 permits a design patent holder to recover the infringer’s total profits from the sale of any article bearing an infringing design — not just a reasonable royalty or lost profits. This is generally a higher recovery standard and is only available for design patent infringement, making it a strategically powerful tool against marketplace sellers with demonstrable sales volumes.
A Schedule A action names defendants by alias rather than real identity, typically targeting anonymous online marketplace sellers. The Northern District of Illinois is frequently chosen for these cases due to its established procedural familiarity with such actions, willingness to grant ex parte TROs for account freezing, and the jurisdiction’s connection to U.S.-based marketplace payment processors.
The asserted patent is USD1006076S, a U.S. design patent filed under application number US29/862020, protecting the ornamental design of a metal nibbler drill attachment. Design patents cover the visual appearance of a product, distinct from utility patents which protect functional features.
Yes. A defendant subject to a default judgment may move to vacate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), which requires showing good cause — typically including a meritorious defence, lack of culpable conduct, and no prejudice to the plaintiff. However, courts apply this standard strictly, and success rates are low, particularly when defendants deliberately failed to engage with the proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.