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.
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.
Filing to Default Judgment in 190 days
190 days from filing to default judgment — a rapid resolution driven by defendant non-appearance
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
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$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 + injunctionPermanent 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 judgmentDesign 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 trendFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer tooling manufacturer — holder of design patent USD1006076S for metal nibbler drill attachmentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Chinese e-commerce seller Wuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsi, targeting Illinois consumers via online marketplaceSearch 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 Martha M. Pacold | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
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.
USD1006076S — ornamental design for a metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus
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.
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.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1006076S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →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.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Machinery tools metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedGuangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd.’s broader IP enforcement history
Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd.’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat 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.
Invalidity of D993,734 eliminates a potential counter-assertion vector
The court’s declaratory invalidity ruling on the defendant’s own design patent under § 102 is notable even in default. It suggests Shunhechuanmei’s counsel proactively neutralised a design that could have been used to challenge the ‘076 patent’s originality or to launch a counter-suit. IP teams monitoring competing design filings in the power tools space should treat co-pending competitor design patents as litigation risks, not merely competitive signals.
Cross-border e-mail service creates enforceable U.S. judgments against Chinese sellers
The court explicitly validated service via e-mail and mail as constitutionally adequate notice, consistent with N.D. Illinois Schedule A practice. This means Chinese sellers operating on U.S. marketplaces cannot rely on geographic distance to avoid U.S. judgment exposure. Any seller whose marketplace account has U.S. payment processors or inventory is potentially reachable for enforcement of such a judgment.
Guangdongsheng v Partnerships — key questions answered
The court entered default judgment for Shunhechuanmei, awarding $199,900 in profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, issuing a permanent injunction against further use of design patent D1,006,076, and declaring the defendant’s competing design patent D993,734 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
USD1006076S (application no. 29/862,020) is a U.S. design patent held by Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. covering the ornamental appearance of a metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus — a power-tool accessory used for cutting sheet metal. Design patents protect visual appearance, not underlying function.
The court declared D993,734 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (novelty/prior art). Because the defendant failed to appear or contest the claim, the invalidity allegation was deemed admitted. The public record does not disclose the specific prior art relied upon, as no merits briefing was filed by the defendant.
Section 289 allows a design patent holder to recover the infringer’s total profits from any article of manufacture to which the patented design has been applied, without needing to apportion those profits to the design itself. This is distinct from utility patent damages. In default cases, the plaintiff’s submitted profit calculations are typically uncontested, which can result in substantial awards.
Schedule A is a procedural mechanism used in the N.D. Illinois where plaintiffs file suit against multiple unnamed e-commerce defendants identified only by online store names. Service is often accomplished via e-mail or through marketplace platforms. This procedure has become a primary enforcement tool for IP holders targeting anonymous cross-border sellers on platforms such as Amazon.
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.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.