Hangzhou Right Play vs Progressive International: Default Judgment of Non-Infringement in 131 Days
Hangzhou Right Play Kids Product Co. (d/b/a ASWEETS) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of Illinois, seeking a ruling that seven Amazon product listings do not infringe Progressive International’s U.S. Patent No. 7,678,271. Progressive International never appeared, and the court entered a default judgment of non-infringement within 131 days.
DJ plaintiff wins outright as patent holder goes silent in N.D. Illinois
In September 2024, Hangzhou Right Play Kids Product Co., Ltd. — operating as Zhejiang ASWEETS Kids Product Co., Ltd. — filed a declaratory judgment complaint against Progressive International Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The dispute centred on seven Amazon ASINs sold by the plaintiff and whether those children’s products infringed claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,678,271, a patent held by Progressive International.
Progressive International failed to answer the complaint or appear in any capacity. Hangzhou Right Play moved for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, and on 3 February 2025, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted the motion in its entirety. The court formally found that plaintiff’s products do not infringe US7678271B2 and entered final judgment against the defaulting defendant. The admitted allegations of the complaint — including non-infringement — became the basis of a binding court order.
The 131-day resolution is notably swift, driven entirely by defendant’s non-participation rather than litigation on the merits. The public record is silent on why Progressive International chose not to appear — whether through a strategic decision, resource constraints, or oversight. The judgment is final and binding but does not include any invalidity ruling on the patent itself, meaning US7678271B2 technically remains in force for other potential enforcement targets.
Filing to Default Judgment in 131 days
131 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the median N.D. Illinois patent case
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: allegations admitted, non-infringement declared
When a defendant fails to appear or answer, the court may enter default judgment under FRCP 55. The uncontroverted allegations of the complaint are deemed admitted. Here, Judge Kennelly found that plaintiff’s products do not infringe US7678271B2 — not on the merits of a contested trial, but because Progressive International forfeited its opportunity to respond. The judgment is legally final and binding on the named parties.
FRCP 55 defaultASWEETS secures clear path to sell seven Amazon product lines
Hangzhou Right Play obtains a federal court order confirming non-infringement of US7678271B2 for the seven named ASINs. This judgment can be used defensively against further enforcement threats from Progressive International on the same patent and same products. Amazon marketplace sellers frequently seek such DJ rulings to remove IP-based listing suspensions and restore seller account standing. The judgment does not, however, protect unrelated products or claims outside the asserted patent.
Non-infringement confirmedProgressive International loses by default, judgment entered against it
By failing to appear, Progressive International is bound by a final federal court judgment that its patent was not infringed by these specific products. Re-asserting US7678271B2 against Hangzhou Right Play for the same ASINs would face a preclusion argument. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against third parties — the ruling is a non-infringement finding only, not an invalidity determination. The defendant’s recourse would be a motion to vacate default under FRCP 60(b), though the window and prospects for such relief are uncertain.
Judgment against defendantAmazon IP enforcement risk model tested by proactive DJ filing
This case illustrates an increasingly common playbook for Chinese e-commerce sellers: proactively filing DJ actions in U.S. federal court when faced with patent-based Amazon listing threats, rather than waiting for infringement suits. If the patent holder fails to engage, the seller obtains a legally binding non-infringement order. For competitors selling similar children’s products, US7678271B2 remains live and enforceable — a freedom-to-operate analysis remains prudent for anyone selling into the same product category.
Amazon IP enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hangzhou Right Play Kids Product Co., Ltd. | Company | Children’s product manufacturer (ASWEETS) — seller of Amazon ASINs at issue; holder of DJ claimsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Progressive International Corporation | Company | Progressive International Corporation — U.S. kitchenware/consumer goods company; holder of US7678271B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Solter | Attorney | Counsel for Hangzhou Right Play Kids Product Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cross-Boarder Counselor, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hangzhou Right Play Kids Product Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Matthew F. Kennelly | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s verdict is procedurally narrow but commercially significant. Judge Kennelly’s finding rests on deemed admissions under FRCP 55 — the merits were never contested. The non-infringement declaration is limited to the seven named Amazon ASINs and US7678271B2; it carries no invalidity ruling. For the plaintiff, this creates a preclusion shield against repeat enforcement on these products. For third parties, the patent’s validity and scope remain untested by any court on the merits.
US7678271B2 — children’s consumer product covered by Progressive International
U.S. Patent No. 7,678,271 (application no. US11/690045) is assigned to Progressive International Corporation, a U.S.-based consumer goods and kitchenware company. The patent’s subject matter, based on the application number and enforcement context, covers a children’s product or related consumer item. The patent was asserted through Amazon’s IP enforcement mechanisms against a range of product listings identified by ASIN, suggesting it covers product configurations or functional features present in the accused goods.
Progressive International’s decision to leverage US7678271B2 against Amazon sellers reflects a broader pattern of using marketplace IP tools to control competitive product listings. However, the patent holder’s failure to defend the patent in federal court — even when faced with a DJ complaint — raises questions about enforcement intent and the commercial value attributed to the patent at this stage. For competitors in the children’s product space, the patent remains nominally in force and warrants monitoring for any resumed enforcement activity.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7678271B2?
Any manufacturer, importer, or Amazon marketplace seller of children’s consumer products that may compete with the accused ASIN categories should assess freedom-to-operate against US7678271B2. Despite the non-infringement judgment in this case, the patent has not been invalidated and Progressive International retains the right to enforce it against different products or new sellers. The judgment protects only Hangzhou Right Play’s named listings.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map claim scope against their specific product designs, identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and monitor the patent’s prosecution history and assignment status. Given the enforcement history via Amazon, a structured FTO review is especially valuable before launching new product lines in this category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7678271B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent DJ cases in N.D. Illinois: children’s and consumer product disputes
Explore comparable declaratory judgment actions in the Northern District of Illinois involving consumer product patents and Amazon marketplace enforcement disputes.
What this case signals for the children’s product and e-commerce IP landscape
Default judgments in DJ actions are reshaping how overseas sellers neutralise U.S. patent threats on Amazon.
Proactive DJ filings are a viable tactic for Amazon sellers facing patent threats
Rather than accepting delisting or negotiating under duress, sellers like ASWEETS are filing federal DJ actions. When patent holders fail to respond, sellers secure binding non-infringement orders. This tactic is low-cost if unopposed and delivers a legally enforceable result — but it requires the seller to have a clear non-infringement position and U.S. counsel capable of moving swiftly.
US7678271B2 remains enforceable against other sellers in the same product category
The judgment binds only Hangzhou Right Play and the named ASINs. Progressive International retains the right to assert US7678271B2 against competitors selling similar children’s products. Any manufacturer or distributor in this category should conduct an FTO analysis before listing products that could fall within the patent’s claims — the patent has not been invalidated.
Hangzhou v Progressive — key questions answered
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the N.D. Illinois entered a default judgment on 3 February 2025, declaring that Hangzhou Right Play’s products (seven Amazon ASINs) do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,678,271. Progressive International failed to appear, and its non-response resulted in a final judgment against it.
U.S. Patent No. 7,678,271 (application no. US11/690045) is held by Progressive International Corporation, a U.S. consumer goods company. The patent was asserted against children’s product listings on Amazon. It has not been declared invalid by any court and remains nominally in force.
No. The court’s ruling is a non-infringement finding only, limited to the seven named Amazon ASINs sold by Hangzhou Right Play. The patent’s validity was not adjudicated. Progressive International can still assert US7678271B2 against other sellers or different products, subject to any applicable procedural defences.
The public record does not disclose why Progressive International failed to answer or appear. Possible explanations include a strategic decision not to contest, a resource or oversight issue, or a reassessment of the patent’s commercial value. The court confirmed that service of process was properly completed, so the defendant was on notice.
Other sellers in the same children’s product category should note that US7678271B2 remains enforceable against them. The judgment binds only Hangzhou Right Play for the named ASINs. Sellers receiving IP complaints based on this patent should consider an FTO analysis and evaluate whether a proactive DJ action is strategically appropriate given the patent holder’s demonstrated non-response pattern.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.