Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei v. Wuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsi – Metal Nibbler Patent | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:24-cv-05863
FiledJul 2024
ClosedJan 2025
Patent Litigation

Shunhechuanmei v. Wuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsi: Default Judgment, $199,900 Award

Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois alleging design patent infringement of its metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus. With the defendant failing to answer, the court entered default judgment, awarding $199,900 in infringer’s profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 and invalidating a competing design patent.

Resolution time
190days
190 days from filing to default judgment — a rapid resolution driven by defendant non-appearance
Patents asserted
1
USD1006076S — metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus, industrial tooling design patent
Outcome
Default Judgment
Plaintiff awarded $199,900 in profits; permanent injunction issued; defendant’s patent invalidated
Cost ruling
Costs ruling
Damages fixed at $199,900 under 35 U.S.C. § 289; no separate fee award disclosed in public record
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Design patent default: nibbler tool maker wins $199,900 and an invalidation

Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd., a Chinese consumer-tools manufacturer, filed suit on 11 July 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a Schedule A defendant later identified as Wuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsi, asserting infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D1,006,076, which protects the ornamental appearance of a metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus.

The case closed on 17 January 2025 — just 190 days after filing — through a default judgment. The defendant failed to answer the complaint, causing all allegations to be deemed admitted. Judge Martha M. Pacold granted Shunhechuanmei’s motion for default judgment, issued a permanent injunction against further use of the ‘076 design, and awarded $199,900 in the defendant’s profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, the design-patent-specific damages provision.

Notably, the court also declared the defendant’s own design patent, U.S. Patent No. D993,734, invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 — a relatively unusual outcome in a default proceeding. The 190-day resolution suggests Shunhechuanmei moved efficiently once default became apparent. The absence of any defendant response means the public record does not reflect any merits contest, and the damages figure likely represents plaintiff’s own profit calculations from accused sales.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:24-cv-05863
CourtIllinois Northern
JudgeMartha M. Pacold
FiledJuly 11, 2024
ClosedJanuary 17, 2025
Duration190 days
OutcomeDefault Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDefault Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Illinois Northern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Default Judgment in 190 days

190 days from filing to default judgment — a rapid resolution driven by defendant non-appearance

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUL 11 2024, OCT–NOV — 190 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. v The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. JUL 11 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings JAN 17 2025 Default Judgment 190 DAYS TOTAL
Default judgment

Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Default judgment: allegations deemed admitted, no merits contest

When a defendant fails to respond to a complaint within the prescribed period, the court may enter default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. All well-pleaded factual allegations are deemed admitted. Here, the defendant initially intervened (Dkt. 19) but ultimately failed to answer, allowing the court to proceed to judgment without any adversarial merits examination. This outcome is common in Schedule A e-commerce enforcement cases.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 default
Plaintiff outcome

$199,900 in profits and a permanent injunction secured

Shunhechuanmei obtained three significant remedies: a permanent injunction barring all further use of the ‘076 design, a $199,900 profits award under 35 U.S.C. § 289 (which does not require proof of causation between infringement and profits), and a declaration that the defendant’s own competing design patent D993,734 is invalid. The invalidity ruling removes a potential offensive weapon the defendant could have deployed.

§ 289 profits + injunction
Defendant outcome

Permanent injunction, $199,900 liability, and a patent invalidated

Wuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsi faces a permanent U.S. injunction preventing it from marketing, selling, or distributing products practising the ‘076 design. Its own design patent D993,734 has been declared invalid, eliminating any arguable design exclusivity it may have claimed. The $199,900 damages figure is enforceable as a U.S. federal judgment, with implications for any U.S. assets or marketplace accounts the defendant operates.

Enforceable federal judgment
Commercial implications

Design IP enforcement against cross-border sellers gains another precedent

This case is consistent with a growing wave of U.S. design patent enforcement actions targeting Chinese marketplace sellers under the ‘Schedule A’ procedure. The court’s willingness to declare a defendant’s design patent invalid in a default context — alongside a § 289 profits award — signals that U.S. courts treat ornamental tooling designs seriously and that marketplace sellers cannot safely ignore U.S. process service conducted via email and mail.

Schedule A IP enforcement trend
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:24-cv-05863 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffGuangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd.CompanyChinese consumer tooling manufacturer — holder of design patent USD1006076S for metal nibbler drill attachmentSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule AIndividualChinese e-commerce seller Wuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsi, targeting Illinois consumers via online marketplaceSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDepeng BiAttorneyCounsel for Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselKonrad Val SherinianAttorneyCounsel for Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmThe Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLCLaw FirmRepresenting Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Martha M. PacoldJudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“This action having been commenced by Plaintiff Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. (“Shunhechuanmei”) against the defendant Wuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsi (“Defendant” and “Wuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsi”), and Shunhechuanmei having moved for entry of Default and Default Judgment against Defendant; Shunhechuanmei having properly completed service of process on Defendant, the combination of providing notice via e-mail and mail being notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise Defendant of the pendency of the action and affording it the opportunity to answer and present its objections; and Defendant having not answered in any way, and the time for answering having expired, so that the allegations of the Complaint are uncontroverted and are deemed admitted; Case: 1:24-cv-05863 Document #: 53 Filed: 01/17/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1637 2 This Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant intervened to participate in the action (Dkt. No. 19), and directly targets business activities toward consumers in Illinois and causes harm to Plaintiff’s business within this judicial district. This court further finds that Defendant is liable for patent infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271) of U.S. Patent No. D1,006,076 (“Shunhechuanmei Patent,” “’076 Patent” and “D1,006,076 Patent”) and U.S. Pat. No. D993,734 is invalid. Accordingly, this Court orders that Shunhechuanmei’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment is GRANTED as follows, that Defendant is deemed in default, and that this Default Judgment is entered against Defendant. This Court further orders that: 1. Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with it be permanently enjoined and restrained from: a. using the ’076 Patent or any reproductions, counterfeit copies, infringing copies, or colorable imitations in any manner in connection with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product that is not a genuine Shunhechuanmei product or not authorized by Shunhechuanmei to be sold in connection with the ’076 Patent; Case: 1:24-cv-05863 Document #: 53 Filed: 01/17/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:1638 3 b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a genuine Shunhechuanmei product or any other product produced by Shunhechuanmei, that is not Shunhechuanmei’s or not produced under the authorization, control, or supervision of Shunhechuanmei and approved by Shunhechuanmei for sale under the ’076 Patent; c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defendant’s products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of Shunhechuanmei, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Shunhechuanmei; and d. manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, products or inventory not manufactured by or for Shunhechuanmei, nor authorized by Shunhechuanmei to be sold or offered for sale, and which practices the ’076 Patent. 2. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, Shunhechuanmei is awarded profits from Defendant for infringing use of the ’076 Patent in the amount of $199,900 U.S. Dollars. 3. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102, Defendant’s U.S. Patent No. D993,734 is invalid.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:24-cv-05863, Illinois Northern District Court

The default judgment is entered on uncontroverted allegations, meaning the court made no independent merits finding on infringement — it accepted plaintiff’s pleaded facts as admitted. The § 289 profits award of $199,900 is consequential: design patent law permits recovery of total article profits without apportionment. The simultaneous invalidity ruling on D993,734 under § 102 is an aggressive but procedurally permissible step, stripping the defendant of any design IP it might otherwise leverage in future proceedings.

PACER case 1:24-cv-05863 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USD1006076S — ornamental design for a metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus

Publication No.USD1006076S
Application No.US29/862020
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design for a metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus
Cited in actionJuly 11, 2024

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,006,076 (application no. 29/862,020) protects the ornamental appearance of a metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus — a handheld power-tool accessory that converts a standard drill into a sheet-metal cutting device. Design patents in the U.S. protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of a functional item, not the underlying function itself. The ‘076 patent gives Shunhechuanmei the right to exclude others from selling products with a confusingly similar visual appearance in the United States.

Metal nibbler attachments occupy a competitive segment of the DIY and light-fabrication power tools market, heavily retailed through Amazon and similar platforms. The proliferation of visually similar products from multiple Chinese sellers makes design patent enforcement commercially significant. A granted design patent combined with willingness to litigate in the N.D. Illinois Schedule A docket represents a potent combination for market clearing. The concurrent invalidation of competitor design D993,734 further consolidates Shunhechuanmei’s design exclusivity in this product category.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against USD1006076S before selling a metal nibbler drill attachment?

Any manufacturer, importer, or marketplace seller offering a metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus in the U.S. market should treat USD1006076S as an active enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that the ‘076 patent holder is actively litigating and securing judgments — including injunctions and five-figure profit awards — against competing products. If your product’s ornamental appearance bears resemblance to the ‘076 design, an FTO analysis is not optional.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental claim scope of USD1006076S against your product’s design drawings, flag design-around opportunities, and surface any inter partes or post-grant proceedings that could affect enforceability. Eureka also monitors new design patent filings by Shunhechuanmei and related entities, providing early warning before litigation risk materialises.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1006076S to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar design patent infringement cases in the N.D. Illinois Schedule A docket

Cases involving design patent enforcement against Schedule A e-commerce defendants in the Northern District of Illinois, particularly in the power tools and hardware accessories space.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern case history, Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Schedule A design cases§ 289 profits awardsPower tool design patentsChinese seller enforcement
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the power tools and hardware IP landscape

A fast default judgment with a patent invalidation underscores the risk calculus for cross-border design patent disputes in the U.S. marketplace.

Schedule A enforcement is accelerating for industrial tool designs

The N.D. Illinois Schedule A docket is an increasingly effective venue for design patent holders targeting anonymous or hard-to-serve e-commerce sellers. This case confirms courts will grant substantial profits awards and injunctions even without full merits litigation, making proactive design patent filing a high-ROI strategy for tooling manufacturers.

§ 289 profits awards require no causation proof — a powerful damages lever

Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent holder can recover the infringer’s total profits from the infringing article without needing to trace those profits to consumer demand for the specific design. In default contexts, plaintiffs’ profit calculations are largely uncontested, meaning the $199,900 award likely reflects plaintiff-submitted sales figures. Companies holding design patents should build profit documentation into enforcement strategy from day one.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock full strategic analysis for power tools design patent enforcement at district court level in the Northern District of Illinois.
D993,734 invalidation impact§ 289 damages benchmarksSchedule A venue strategy
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Guangdongsheng v Partnerships — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Is your power tool or hardware product clear of USD1006076S?

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on your metal nibbler or drill attachment design before entering the U.S. market. PatSnap Eureka monitors active enforcement by Shunhechuanmei and flags design patent filings that could create infringement exposure.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.