Huankai Gao v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Toy Bubble Gun Design Patent
Patent holder Huankai Gao sued anonymous e-commerce storefronts operating on Amazon and similar platforms for infringing U.S. Design Patent USD962,349S covering a toy bubble gun. After defendants failed to respond, the Florida Southern District Court entered a final default judgment — awarding profits, a permanent injunction, and directing Amazon Pay to release frozen funds to the plaintiff.
Design patent default judgment targets Amazon storefront infringers
On February 13, 2023, Huankai Gao filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against a group of anonymous e-commerce sellers — identified only by their online storefronts on Schedule A — for infringing U.S. Design Patent USD962,349S, which covers the ornamental design of a toy bubble gun. The case is characteristic of the ‘Schedule A’ enforcement model, in which individual or small-entity patent holders target networks of overseas marketplace sellers operating through platforms such as Amazon.
The action concluded on June 4, 2025, when Judge Rodney Smith entered a final default judgment against the defaulting defendants, who had failed to answer the complaint after being served via email and notified through payment processors. The court found it had personal jurisdiction based on defendants’ deliberate targeting of U.S. and Florida consumers. The judgment included a permanent injunction prohibiting further manufacture, import, sale, or distribution of infringing products, and awarded the plaintiff defendants’ profits from infringing sales. One defendant, OUKEYI, was separately dismissed without prejudice prior to the final judgment.
The 842-day duration suggests the case involved multiple procedural steps — including a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and coordination with third-party payment processors — before the default judgment was entered. The public record does not disclose the aggregate monetary award, as damages are detailed in a sealed or non-public Exhibit A. What remains unknown is whether any defendants subsequently moved to vacate the default or whether the plaintiff recovered full payment from the frozen Amazon Pay accounts.
Filing to Default Judgment in 842 days
842 days from filing to final default judgment — consistent with Schedule A e-commerce enforcement timelines
Final default judgment: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: defendants forfeited their right to contest
A final default judgment is entered when defendants fail to respond to a properly served complaint. Here, service was effected via email and through payment processor notifications — a method the court found constitutionally adequate. Because no defendant answered, the court accepted the plaintiff’s allegations as true and entered judgment without a merits trial. The default is binding and enforceable, though defendants may petition to vacate under Rule 55(c) if they can show good cause.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 defaultGao secures injunction, profits, and frozen Amazon Pay funds
The judgment grants Huankai Gao a permanent injunction against all defaulting defendants and awards infringer profits as damages. Critically, the court ordered Amazon Pay and other third-party providers to release frozen financial account balances to the plaintiff within ten business days. The plaintiff also retains ongoing authority to serve the order on newly discovered accounts — a significant enforcement tool in marketplace litigation where sellers routinely create new storefronts.
Permanent injunction grantedDefaulting sellers face permanent ban and asset seizure
Defaulting defendants are permanently enjoined from manufacturing, importing, advertising, or selling any products infringing the ‘349 patent. Their marketplace accounts and financial balances held by Amazon Pay are subject to seizure up to the damages award. Defendants who wish to resume lawful operations would need to successfully move to vacate the default — a difficult standard to meet, particularly where service was court-approved. OUKEYI, the one named defendant, was dismissed without prejudice and faces no judgment.
Assets frozen and releasedSchedule A enforcement model validated for design patent holders
This judgment reinforces the viability of the ‘Schedule A’ litigation strategy for design patent enforcement against anonymous marketplace sellers. The court’s acceptance of email service and payment processor notice lowers the procedural barrier for rights holders pursuing overseas e-commerce infringers. For sellers operating on Amazon, the ruling signals that inactivity in litigation — even without formal notice via traditional channels — can result in account freezes and profit disgorgement. Competitors in the toy and consumer product sectors should monitor this enforcement pattern.
E-commerce IP enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Huankai Gao | Individual | Individual patent holder — holder of USD962,349S, toy bubble gun ornamental designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule ‘A’ | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce storefront operators selling allegedly infringing toy bubble guns on Amazon and similar platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Jonathan Palmer | Attorney | Counsel for Huankai GaoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Palmer Law Group PA | Law Firm | Representing Huankai GaoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Smith | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The final default judgment is comprehensive in scope: the court entered findings of liability, a permanent injunction, a damages award of infringer profits, and third-party enforcement orders against Amazon Pay — all without a contested merits hearing. The verdict language mirrors standard Schedule A default judgment templates in S.D. Florida, suggesting the plaintiff’s counsel followed an established playbook. Notably, the judgment carves out OUKEYI by name, indicating that at least one defendant engaged with the litigation sufficiently to obtain a without-prejudice dismissal before the default was entered against the remaining sellers.
USD962,349S — Ornamental design of a toy bubble gun
U.S. Design Patent USD962,349S, filed under application number US29/816920, protects the ornamental design of a toy bubble gun — that is, the specific visual appearance of the product rather than its functional mechanism. Design patents grant the holder a right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an article with substantially the same appearance as the claimed design, assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ standard. The patent’s scope is defined entirely by the drawings filed with the application, making claim scope a highly visual and product-specific inquiry.
In the consumer toy market, design patents are increasingly used by individual inventors and small brands to protect product aesthetics on e-commerce platforms where counterfeit and copycat listings proliferate rapidly. USD962,349S is strategically significant because the toy bubble gun category is heavily populated on Amazon by third-party sellers — many operating from outside the United States — making it difficult to enforce through traditional channels. A valid, registered design patent combined with the Schedule A litigation model provides the rights holder with a powerful and relatively low-cost enforcement toolkit against this type of infringement.
Should you run an FTO against USD962,349S before selling toy bubble guns?
Any manufacturer, importer, or Amazon marketplace seller offering a toy bubble gun — or a product with a substantially similar visual appearance — should consider an FTO analysis against USD962,349S before listing. The ordinary observer test used in U.S. design patent cases is broad: a product does not need to be identical to infringe, only sufficiently similar that an ordinary buyer familiar with the prior art might confuse the two. Given that this case resulted in a permanent injunction and asset seizure, the downside risk of non-compliance is account suspension and profit disgorgement.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the visual claim scope of USD962,349S against your product design, surface prior art that may narrow the patent’s effective coverage, and flag related design patents in the same product category. For R&D and sourcing teams, Eureka can also identify design-around opportunities — alternative aesthetic configurations that reduce infringement risk while preserving commercial viability in the toy bubble gun market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0962349S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in S.D. Florida
Browse comparable Schedule A design patent infringement cases filed in the Southern District of Florida targeting anonymous Amazon storefront sellers of consumer toy products.
What this case signals for the consumer product design patent landscape
Schedule A default judgments are reshaping how design patent holders enforce rights against anonymous online sellers.
Email service and payment processor notice is court-validated in S.D. Fla.
The court’s explicit finding that email service combined with payment processor notification satisfies due process confirms a reliable enforcement pathway in the Southern District of Florida. Rights holders pursuing marketplace sellers — who often have no U.S. physical address — can deploy this mechanism with confidence, provided they document the service attempts thoroughly.
Asset freeze orders create immediate leverage before any merits ruling
The sequence of TRO, asset freeze, and then default judgment means plaintiff-side enforcement in these cases often achieves financial recovery before a single substantive legal argument is tested. For defendants, the practical risk is account suspension and fund seizure within days of a TRO — well before they may even be aware of the action.
Gao v Individuals — key questions answered
The Southern District of Florida entered a final default judgment in favor of plaintiff Huankai Gao on March 11, 2025. The court found the defaulting defendants liable for infringing U.S. Design Patent USD962,349S and issued a permanent injunction, awarded infringer profits, and ordered Amazon Pay to release frozen funds to the plaintiff. The case was formally closed on June 4, 2025.
USD962,349S protects the ornamental design — the specific visual appearance — of a toy bubble gun. Filed under application number US29/816920, it grants the holder the right to exclude others from selling products with a substantially similar aesthetic, as assessed under the ordinary observer test. The patent’s scope is defined by its design drawings rather than written claims.
The final default judgment expressly excludes Defendant OUKEYI, listed as Defendant Number 2, noting that OUKEYI was dismissed without prejudice prior to entry of the judgment. The public record does not detail the basis for that dismissal — it may reflect a settlement, a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff, or OUKEYI’s engagement with the litigation — but no prejudice attaches to OUKEYI from the default judgment itself.
The court found personal jurisdiction because the defaulting defendants deliberately targeted U.S. and Florida consumers by operating storefronts that offered shipping to Florida, accepted U.S. dollar payments, and sold infringing products to Florida residents. This ‘targeting’ analysis is standard in Schedule A cases in the Southern District of Florida and does not require the defendant to have a physical presence in the state.
The judgment awarded a permanent injunction barring defendants from manufacturing, importing, or selling infringing products; an order requiring Amazon Pay and other third-party providers to freeze and release defendant account balances to the plaintiff within 10 business days; and ongoing authority for the plaintiff to serve the order on newly discovered accounts. This gives Gao a rolling enforcement mechanism against successor storefronts without needing to file a new lawsuit.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.