Book a demo

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

Try now
Haoran Niu v. The Defendant Identified On Schedule A | Patent Lawsuit 1:25-cv-11167

Haoran Niu v. The Defendant Identified On Schedule A

1:25-cv-11167 N.D. Ill. Closed USD1068419S
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 16 Sep 2025 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and closed 15 May 2026, with USD1068419S asserted. Recorded basis of termination: default judgment.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
USD1068419S
Application no.
US29/982873
Case no.
1:25-cv-11167
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
N.D. Ill.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Illinois
Chief judge
Mary M. Rowland
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
16 Sep 2025 – 15 May 2026
Duration
241 days
Basis of termination
Default Judgment
Products & marks
Wrench
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:25-cv-11167, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Huicheng ZhouHaoran NiuPlaintiff
Yifeng HaoHaoran NiuPlaintiff
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“This action has been commenced by Plaintiff Haoran Niu (“Plaintiff”) against the defendants identified on Schedule A, and using the Defendant Domain Names and Online Marketplace Accounts identified on Schedule A (collectively, the “Defendant Internet Stores”), and Plaintiff having moved for entry of Default and Default Judgment against the defendants identified on Schedule A attached hereto which have not yet been dismissed from this case (collectively, “Defaulting Defendants”); This Court having entered a preliminary injunction against Defaulting Defendants; Plaintiff having properly completed service of process on Defaulting Defendants, providing notice via electronic means like e-mail, along with any notice that Defaulting Defendants received from payment processors, being notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise Defaulting Defendants of the pendency of the action and affording them the opportunity to answer and present their objections. Case: 1:25-cv-11167 Document #: 56 Filed: 05/15/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1360 2 None of the Defaulting Defendants having answered or appeared in any way, and the time for answering having expired, so that the allegations of the Complaint are uncontroverted and are deemed admitted. THIS COURT HEREBY FINDS that it has personal jurisdiction over Defaulting Defendants since Defaulting Defendants directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defaulting Defendants has infringed Plaintiff’s Design Patent No. D1,068,419 S (“Asserted Patent”) and targeted them to residents of Illinois; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED in its entirety. The Clerk shall enter default against the Defaulting Defendants, and if the Defaulting Defendants do not oppose in 14 days, the Default Judgment below will be deemed as entered against Defaulting Defendants. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 1. Defaulting Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them be permanently enjoined and restrained from: a. using Plaintiff’s Asserted Patent in any manner in connection with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product that not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the Asserted Patent; b. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defaulting Defendants’ products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff; c. further infringing the Asserted Patent and damaging Plaintiff’s goodwill; and Case: 1:25-cv-11167 Document #: 56 Filed: 05/15/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:1361 3 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 Plaintiff, nor authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered for sale, and which bear any of Plaintiff’s Asserted Patent. 2. Upon Plaintiff’s request, any third party with actual notice of this Order who is providing services for any of the Defaulting Defendants, or in connection with any of the Defaulting Defendants’ Online Marketplaces, including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as eBay, Inc. (“eBay”), Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), Walmart Inc. (“Walmart”), WhaleCo, Inc. (“Temu”), (collectively, the “Third Party Providers”), shall within seven (7) calendar days of receipt such notice, disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with Defaulting Defendants in connection with the sale of counterfeit and infringing goods bear the Asserted Patent. 3. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages from each of the Defaulting Defendants in the amount attached below for Patent infringement of the Asserted Patent. 4. Plaintiff may serve this Order on Third Party Providers, including PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”), eBay, Alipay, Alibaba, Ant Financial Services Group (“Ant Financial”), Wish.com, Walmart, Etsy, DHgate, Temu, TikTok, and Amazon Pay, by e-mail delivery to the e-mail addresses Plaintiff used to serve the Temporary Restraining Order on the Third Party Providers. 5. Any Third Party Providers holding funds for Defaulting Defendants, including PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”), eBay, Alipay, Alibaba, AliExpress, Wish.com, Ant Financial Services Group (“Ant Financial”), Walmart, Etsy, DHgate, Temu, TikTok, and Amazon Pay, shall, within Case: 1:25-cv-11167 Document #: 56 Filed: 05/15/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:1362 4 seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order, permanently restrain and enjoin any accounts connected to Defaulting Defendants’ Seller Aliases or the Online Marketplaces from transferring or disposing of any funds (up to the statutory damages awarded in Paragraphs 3 above) or other of Defaulting Defendants’ assets. 6. All money (up to the amount of the statutory damages awarded in Paragraphs above) currently restrained in Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts, including monies held by Third Party Providers such as PayPal, eBay, Alipay, Alibaba, AliExpress, Wish.com, Ant Financial, Walmart, Etsy, DHgate, Temu, TikTok, and Amazon Pay, are hereby released to Plaintiff as partial payment of the above-identified damages, and Third Party Providers, including PayPal, eBay, Alipay, Alibaba, AliExpress, Wish.com, Ant Financial, Walmart, Etsy, DHgate, Temu, TikTok, and Amazon Pay, are ordered to release to Plaintiff the amounts from Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order. 7. Until Plaintiff has recovered full payment of monies owed to it by any Defaulting Defendant, Plaintiff shall have the ongoing authority to serve this Order on Third Party Providers in the event that any new financial accounts controlled or operated by Defaulting Defendants are identified. Upon receipt of this Order, Third Party Providers, including PayPal, eBay, Alipay, Alibaba, Ant Financial, Wish.com, Walmart, Etsy, DHgate, Temu, TikTok, and Amazon Pay, shall within seven (7) calendar days: a. locate all accounts and funds connected to Defaulting Defendants’ Seller Aliases and Online Marketplaces, including, but not limited to, any financial accounts connected to the information listed in Schedule A hereto and any e-mail addresses provided for Defaulting Defendants by third parties; Case: 1:25-cv-11167 Document #: 56 Filed: 05/15/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:1363 5 b. restrain and enjoin such accounts or funds from transferring or disposing of any money or other of Defaulting Defendants’ assets; and c. release all money, up to the above identified statutory damages award, in Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts to Plaintiff’s as partial payment of the above-identified damages within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order. 8. In the event that Plaintiff identifies any additional online marketplace accounts, domain names, or financial accounts owned by Defaulting Defendants, Plaintiff may send notice of any supplemental proceeding to Defaulting Defendants by e-mail at any e-mail addresses provided for Defaulting Defendants by third parties. 9. The bond previously posted in this action shall be returned to Plaintiff as the preliminary injunction no longer applies to any Defendant. This is a Default Judgment.”

Case 1:25-cv-11167 · N.D. Ill. · closed 15 May 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:25-cv-11167?

1:25-cv-11167 is a patent infringement action brought by Haoran Niu against The Defendant Identified On Schedule A, filed on 16 Sep 2025 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case closed on 15 May 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 1:25-cv-11167?

USD1068419S (“Wrench”), assigned to CHEN, YUTING, currently active. The record also lists Wrench.

How was case 1:25-cv-11167 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is default judgment. The termination text reads: “This action has been commenced by Plaintiff Haoran Niu (“Plaintiff”) against the defendants identified on Schedule A, and using the Defendant Domain Names and Online Marketplace Accounts identified on Schedule A (collectively, the “Defendant Internet Stores”), and Plaintiff having moved for entry of Default and Default Judgment against the defendants identified on Schedule A attached hereto which have not yet been dismissed from this case (collectively, “Defaulting Defendants”); This Court having entered a preliminary injunction against Defaulting Defendants; Plaintiff having properly complet

What does default judgment mean?

A default judgment is entered when a defendant does not appear or does not defend the action.

How long did case 1:25-cv-11167 take?

241 calendar days, from filing on 16 Sep 2025 to closure on 15 May 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-11167?

Chief Judge Mary M. Rowland presided. Huicheng Zhou and Yifeng Hao are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Haoran Niu.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:25-cv-11167 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-11167 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

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