Heng Zhu v. Ceyder: Design Patent Default Judgment, $250 Award
Heng Zhu filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against Ceyder, an online seller of animal brushes. Ceyder failed to appear, triggering a default judgment — but the court awarded only the statutory minimum of $250 under 35 U.S.C. § 289 after the plaintiff presented zero sales data to support a larger damages claim.
A default win undercut by a near-empty damages record
Heng Zhu filed this design patent infringement case on March 5, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Jeremy C. Daniel. The asserted patent, USD1020133S (application no. US29/916645), protects the ornamental design of a brush for animals. The defendant, Ceyder — identified by Amazon ASINs B0D9YWLCQ8 and B0CR49XHNN — was named as part of a Schedule A defendants action targeting online marketplace sellers.
Ceyder never appeared in the litigation, allowing the court to enter default and subsequently default judgment in the plaintiff’s favor. However, the court’s default judgment ruling, issued on November 12, 2025, was notably restrained. Despite the plaintiff seeking a lump-sum monetary award plus enhanced damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 289, the court awarded only the statutory floor of $250 — the minimum prescribed when no profit evidence is submitted.
The 252-day duration is consistent with expedited Schedule A default proceedings, which rarely extend beyond a year. What makes this resolution commercially significant is the court’s explicit rebuke: it rejected the invitation to award damages without profit proof and confirmed that § 289 does not permit enhancement of total profit awards. The public record is silent on whether Ceyder generated any meaningful revenue, and no settlement or licensing terms were disclosed.
Filing to Default Judgment in 252 days
252 days — resolved within one calendar year, typical for uncontested default actions
Default judgment entered: what the $250 award means for both parties
Default judgment under § 289: liability confirmed, damages floored
When a defendant fails to appear, the court may enter a default judgment establishing liability. Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, damages for design patent infringement are measured by the infringer’s total profit, with a statutory floor of $250. Because the plaintiff submitted no sales data, the court was bound to award only the minimum. The court also confirmed that § 289 does not permit enhancement of profit-based awards, citing Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am.
Liability established; $250 floor appliedPatent upheld in principle — but damages record proved fatal
Heng Zhu prevailed on liability: the court confirmed infringement of USD1020133S and entered judgment. However, the failure to submit any evidence of Ceyder’s profits or sales volume meant the plaintiff received only $250 — a symbolic victory at best. The plaintiff also sought enhanced damages for willful infringement, but the court rejected that request outright as legally unavailable under § 289.
Liability win; near-zero recoveryCeyder’s non-appearance limits exposure — but leaves IP risk unresolved
By failing to appear, Ceyder accepted a default judgment against it, establishing infringement of record. The $250 award is minimal, but the judgment itself could be used to support future enforcement actions, marketplace takedowns, or injunctive relief if Ceyder continues selling. The absence of a contested record means no invalidity arguments were raised or adjudicated, leaving the patent fully intact.
Judgment on record; no invalidity challengeSchedule A default cases demand robust profit evidence — or risk minimal recovery
This case is a cautionary signal for design patent plaintiffs pursuing Schedule A marketplace enforcement. Courts in the Northern District of Illinois will not fill evidentiary gaps in damages calculations, even when liability is uncontested. Plaintiffs must proactively gather and submit sales data — through Amazon subpoenas or marketplace discovery — before moving for default judgment to avoid being limited to the § 289 statutory minimum.
Damages evidence is non-negotiableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Heng Zhu | Individual | Design patent holder — ornamental design for a brush for animals (USD1020133S)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations in Schedule A | Individual | Online marketplace seller of animal brushes; identified by Amazon ASINs B0D9YWLCQ8 and B0CR49XHNNSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Michael Dewitty | Attorney | Counsel for Heng ZhuSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dewitty And Associates, Chtd. | Law Firm | Representing Heng ZhuSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeremy C. Daniel | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s default judgment ruling is notable for what it withholds as much as what it awards. Judge Daniel entered judgment for the plaintiff on liability, confirming infringement of USD1020133S, but limited monetary relief to $250 — the statutory floor under 35 U.S.C. § 289 — after the plaintiff submitted no profit evidence. The court’s explicit rejection of the ‘award without proof’ invitation, and its black-letter restatement that § 289 does not permit enhancement, signals a disciplined evidentiary standard that plaintiffs in future Schedule A default cases before this court should treat as controlling.
USD1020133S — ornamental design for a brush for animals
USD1020133S (application no. US29/916645) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a brush for animals. Design patents cover the novel visual characteristics of a functional article — in this case, the specific aesthetic configuration of a pet grooming brush. The patent was asserted against Ceyder’s products listed on Amazon under ASINs B0D9YWLCQ8 and B0CR49XHNN, suggesting the patented design is commercially active in the online pet accessories market.
Pet grooming accessories represent a high-volume, crowded e-commerce category with numerous low-cost offshore sellers. A design patent on a brush configuration can provide meaningful marketplace leverage — particularly via Amazon’s IP enforcement tools — even where profit damages are difficult to quantify. The enforceability of USD1020133S was not challenged in this proceeding, leaving it as an active and unrestricted enforcement asset in the pet grooming accessories sector.
Should you run an FTO against USD1020133S?
Any product team developing or sourcing animal grooming brushes for the U.S. market — particularly sellers on Amazon or other online marketplaces — should assess their exposure to USD1020133S. This patent emerged from an active Schedule A enforcement campaign and remains fully valid and unchallenged. Products with ornamental designs similar to the patented brush configuration could be vulnerable to infringement claims, ASIN removal requests, or injunctive proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental design scope of USD1020133S against your product’s visual characteristics, identify design-around opportunities, and surface any pending continuations or related applications that could extend the patent family’s reach. For marketplace sellers and ODM sourcing teams, a targeted FTO review is a low-cost safeguard against enforcement risk in this product category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1020133S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois
Browse comparable design patent infringement actions against online marketplace sellers adjudicated in the Northern District of Illinois, covering pet accessories and consumer goods.
What this case signals for the design patent enforcement IP landscape
A default judgment that delivered a $250 award exposes a structural risk in Schedule A enforcement strategy.
Proof of profits is mandatory — even in uncontested default proceedings
Judge Daniel’s ruling makes clear that Northern District of Illinois courts will not award speculative damages under § 289 without sales evidence. Design patent holders pursuing e-commerce infringers must secure marketplace sales data via subpoena or platform requests before filing for default judgment, not after.
§ 289 enhancement is unavailable — willfulness arguments are moot for design patents
The court’s citation of Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am. confirms that enhanced damages are not a tool available to design patent holders under § 289. Plaintiffs seeking punitive-style recovery should assess whether utility patent claims or trade dress claims can be asserted alongside design patents to preserve enhancement options.
Zhu v Partnerships — key questions answered
The court awarded $250 — the statutory minimum under 35 U.S.C. § 289 — because the plaintiff submitted no evidence of the defendant’s profits or sales volume. Under § 289, design patent damages are measured by the infringer’s total profit, and without any sales data in the record, the court was limited to the statutory floor.
No. The court in this case confirmed, citing Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am. (Fed. Cir. 1992), that § 289 does not authorise enhancement of the total profit award. Plaintiffs seeking enhanced or punitive-style damages for wilful design patent infringement would need to pursue alternative claims not governed solely by § 289.
Schedule A actions allow a plaintiff to sue multiple anonymous online marketplace sellers — identified by store names or ASINs rather than legal entity names — in a single proceeding. In the Northern District of Illinois, these cases frequently involve Chinese e-commerce sellers. When defendants fail to appear, plaintiffs typically move for default and then default judgment, as occurred here.
Yes. No invalidity or unenforceability arguments were raised or adjudicated in this proceeding. The patent was not challenged on the merits, and the default judgment confirms infringement without disturbing the patent’s validity. USD1020133S remains an active enforcement asset.
Courts applying 35 U.S.C. § 289 require proof of the infringer’s total profit from sales of the infringing article. In e-commerce Schedule A cases, plaintiffs typically obtain this data via third-party subpoenas to Amazon or other platforms before moving for default judgment. Without sales or revenue data, courts will limit recovery to the $250 statutory minimum, as occurred in this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.