Shunhechuanmei v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Metal Nibbler Drill Attachment Design Patent
Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. filed suit in the Illinois Northern District Court against anonymous online marketplace sellers infringing design patent USD1006076S, covering a metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus. Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings granted default judgment and a permanent injunction within 252 days, ordering disgorgement of infringer profits and immediate asset freezes across platforms including Amazon, Temu, and AliExpress.
Chinese IP holder secures swift default judgment against anonymous marketplace infringers
Filed on 20 December 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, this case pitted Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. — a Chinese manufacturer holding design patent USD1006076S — against an anonymous group of online sellers identified only as the ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ The asserted patent covers the ornamental design of a metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus, a tool accessory product sold widely across e-commerce platforms. Shunhechuanmei was represented by The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC, a Naperville, Illinois firm experienced in Schedule A enforcement actions.
No defendant appeared or answered the complaint, triggering Shunhechuanmei’s motion for entry of default and default judgment. Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings granted the motion on 29 August 2025, entering a permanent injunction barring all infringing activity and ordering disgorgement of each defaulting defendant’s profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 — the design patent damages statute that allows recovery of the infringer’s total profits from the infringing article. Third-party payment processors and marketplace operators — including Amazon, PayPal, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish.com, Temu, and Ant Financial — were ordered to freeze and transfer restrained funds to Shunhechuanmei within 14 calendar days.
The 252-day case duration is consistent with the expedited timeline typical of Schedule A default proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois, where many such cases conclude within six to twelve months. The defendants’ failure to appear likely reflects the common profile of offshore marketplace sellers who lack U.S. legal presence and choose not to contest jurisdiction. What remains unknown from the public record is the aggregate dollar amount actually recovered — the verdict references a per-defendant profits table that is not fully reproduced in the available case data — as well as whether any defendants subsequently moved to vacate the default.
Filing to Default Judgment in 252 days
252 days — resolved faster than the median Schedule A patent default in N.D. Ill.
Default judgment entered: permanent injunction and profit disgorgement against all defendants
Default judgment: what it means when defendants don’t appear
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and enters relief accordingly. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, the court must still assess damages — here done via a per-defendant profits table under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Defaulting defendants lose all rights to contest liability, damages, or injunctive scope at this stage, though they may later move to vacate under Rule 60(b) on narrow grounds.
FRCP Rule 55 defaultShunhechuanmei wins full injunctive relief and frozen marketplace funds
Shunhechuanmei obtained the full spectrum of available design patent remedies: a permanent injunction covering all sales channels, disgorgement of infringer profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, and direct instructions to third-party payment processors to transfer frozen funds. The $49,000 surety bond was also returned. The judgment gives Shunhechuanmei ongoing authority to pursue supplemental proceedings under FRCP 69, enabling asset discovery against defendants who have not yet paid in full — a meaningful enforcement tool against diffuse marketplace sellers.
Plaintiff: full relief grantedAll defaulting sellers face permanent ban and asset seizure across major platforms
Each defaulting defendant is subject to a permanent injunction across all major e-commerce platforms — Amazon, AliExpress, Temu, Wish.com, eBay, and Dhgate — and all associated payment accounts are frozen and redirected to the plaintiff. Defendants who later wish to challenge the judgment face a high bar under Rule 60(b), typically requiring a showing of excusable neglect or lack of actual notice. Any seller continuing to operate under new aliases risks contempt proceedings.
Defendants: permanent injunction + asset freezeSchedule A enforcement risk is real for marketplace sellers of tool accessories
This case reinforces the viability of Schedule A litigation as an enforcement vehicle for Chinese IP holders against diffuse online infringers. The combination of a $49,000 surety bond threshold, rapid default timelines in N.D. Ill., and platform-level asset freezes creates a credible deterrent. Competing sellers of metal nibbler attachments and similar drill accessories on Amazon, Temu, or AliExpress should assess their product designs against USD1006076S to evaluate infringement risk — particularly given the court’s willingness to freeze funds without defendant participation.
Tool accessories IP enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese manufacturer and design patent holder — owner of USD1006076S for metal nibbler drill attachmentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers alleged to sell counterfeit/infringing metal nibbler drill attachmentsSearch 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’s broad injunctive language — covering all officers, agents, and persons acting in concert — is standard for Schedule A cases and is designed to prevent sellers from simply relisting under new accounts. The reference to a per-defendant profits table under 35 U.S.C. § 289 suggests individualised damage calculations per seller alias, which is consistent with N.D. Ill. practice in Schedule A proceedings. Notably, the court’s ongoing FRCP 69 authorisation signals that actual fund recovery may extend well beyond the judgment date.
USD1006076S — Ornamental Design for a Metal Nibbler Drill Attachment Apparatus
USD1006076S is a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus — a cutting tool accessory that attaches to a standard power drill to cut sheet metal. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of a product, meaning any substantially similar-looking competing product can infringe regardless of mechanical differences. The underlying application number is US 29/862,020. Design patents in this product category are typically examined and granted on a relatively short timeline, giving manufacturers a fast route to enforceable U.S. IP rights.
In the highly competitive online market for tool accessories, design patent registration provides a meaningful moat: it enables the kind of swift, platform-disruptive enforcement action demonstrated here. Competitors selling visually similar metal nibbler drill attachments on Amazon, Temu, AliExpress, or eBay face real risk of being swept into future Schedule A actions by Shunhechuanmei or similarly positioned plaintiffs. The design patent’s ornamental scope means that minor functional variations do not necessarily avoid infringement — the overall visual impression is the controlling test under Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1006076S?
Any company designing, sourcing, or selling metal nibbler drill attachments — or visually similar sheet metal cutting accessories — for the U.S. market should assess whether their product’s ornamental design creates infringement risk under USD1006076S. This applies particularly to sellers active on Amazon, Temu, AliExpress, or eBay, given that this judgment explicitly targets those platforms and grants the patent holder ongoing enforcement authority. The risk is not limited to direct competitors: any product that an ordinary observer might confuse with Shunhechuanmei’s design may fall within the patent’s scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD1006076S against your product portfolio, identify the patent’s visual claim scope, and surface related design patents that may present additional risk. Eureka’s claim charting and prior art search tools can also help you assess design-around options or identify prior art that could support a validity challenge if you are named in a future Schedule A proceeding. Proactive FTO analysis is materially faster and cheaper than responding to a default motion with frozen marketplace accounts.
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 the Northern District of Illinois
These cases involve Schedule A enforcement of U.S. design patents against anonymous online marketplace sellers in the Northern District of Illinois, covering tool accessories and consumer products.
What this case signals for the e-commerce tool accessories IP landscape
Schedule A default judgments in N.D. Ill. are becoming a primary enforcement tool for Chinese design patent holders — and this case shows the full enforcement arc.
N.D. Ill. remains the preferred venue for Schedule A design patent enforcement
The Northern District of Illinois consistently processes Schedule A default cases at speed, often granting TROs and asset freezes within days of filing. Shunhechuanmei’s 252-day resolution — from filing to default judgment — confirms this court’s efficiency for plaintiffs holding clear design patents against non-appearing defendants. Companies operating on major marketplaces should treat this court as a high-risk jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 289 profit disgorgement makes design patents particularly powerful in e-commerce actions
Unlike utility patent damages, § 289 allows recovery of the infringer’s total profits from the infringing article — not just a reasonable royalty. In marketplace contexts where sellers often operate on thin margins but high volume, this can produce substantial awards relative to product price point. Businesses selling tool accessories or similar consumer goods online should treat design patent clearance as a commercial priority, not a formality.
Guangdongsheng v Partnerships — key questions answered
The court entered a default judgment in favour of Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. on 29 August 2025. Defaulting defendants were permanently enjoined from selling infringing products and ordered to disgorge profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Third-party payment processors were directed to freeze and transfer restrained funds to Shunhechuanmei within 14 days.
The asserted patent is USD1006076S (application number US 29/862,020), a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design of a metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus. Design patents protect visual appearance, not function, and infringement is assessed under the ordinary observer test established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa.
A Schedule A default judgment typically results in a permanent injunction across all named e-commerce platforms (Amazon, eBay, Temu, AliExpress, Wish.com, Dhgate) and an order freezing and transferring the defendants’ funds held by payment processors. Sellers who do not appear lose all ability to contest liability. The judgment may also authorise supplemental proceedings to pursue additional accounts discovered after entry.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent holder may recover the total profits of the infringer from the infringing article — not merely a reasonable royalty. This is distinct from utility patent damages. In Schedule A cases, courts typically calculate damages per defendant seller alias based on reported sales data, often sourced from platform records or the plaintiff’s own investigation.
Yes, but the bar is high. A defaulting defendant may move to vacate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), typically on grounds such as excusable neglect, lack of actual notice, or a meritorious defence. Courts evaluate such motions carefully; mere ignorance of the proceedings is generally insufficient. Defendants who successfully vacate must then contest the underlying infringement claims on the merits.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.