Huiying Health v. Tang: Design Patent Invalidated in TEMU E-Commerce Case

Case Overview

In a decisive default judgment issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, plaintiff Huiying Health secured a significant win against a TEMU marketplace seller — and in doing so, successfully invalidated the defendant’s own design patent covering electronic visual ear pick devices. Case No. 1:24-cv-10319, closed on June 3, 2025, illustrates a growing enforcement pattern in e-commerce patent litigation: foreign-linked marketplace sellers asserting questionable IP rights against competing vendors, only to face judicial invalidation when they fail to defend their position.

The case resolved in just 231 days through default judgment after defendant Songshu Tang and their associated TEMU storefront ([email protected]) failed to appear or respond. Beyond the procedural outcome, this case carries meaningful implications for e-commerce platform IP enforcement, design patent validity challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), and the strategic use of offensive declaratory postures by aggrieved marketplace competitors in the consumer electronics accessories space.

The Parties

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Attorneys: Pete Scott Wolfgram and Xiyan Zhang of Stratum Law LLC
Defendant Attorneys: None on record — defendant did not retain or appear through counsel

Patents at Issue

This case involved Design Patent No. D’1,2025,904 (US12025904B1, Application No. US18/590555) covering electronic visual ear pick devices — consumer health gadgets that integrate a camera or optical sensor into an ear cleaning implement for real-time visual feedback.

The litigation centered on electronic visual ear pick devices sold through the TEMU marketplace. These compact consumer health tools represent a competitive, high-volume product category on e-commerce platforms, making IP disputes over their design and functionality commercially significant.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Filed in the Northern District of Illinois — a court with substantial experience adjudicating e-commerce and IP disputes — the case was assigned to Chief Judge Martha M. Pacold. Venue selection in the Northern District is strategically common for e-commerce IP cases given the court’s familiarity with digital commerce enforcement issues and its established procedural framework for service on foreign or anonymous online sellers.

The 231-day duration reflects the efficiency of default judgment proceedings when defendants fail to appear. Plaintiffs completed service through a combination of electronic publication and email — a method the court explicitly validated as “reasonably calculated under all circumstances” to provide constitutionally sufficient notice under the Due Process Clause.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The court entered default judgment in favor of plaintiffs Huiying Health and HB Direct on all counts, finding defendants in default. No damages figure was disclosed in the available case record. Three dispositive findings were entered:

• • Design Patent No. D’1,2025,904 declared invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) — the prior art anticipation standard
• • Unlawful interference with business expectancies (Count II) found against defendants
• • Unfair competition (Count III) established against defendants

Verdict Cause Analysis

The court’s invalidation of the defendant’s design patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is the most legally significant element of this ruling. Section 102(a)(1) bars patent protection for inventions that were “patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date.” By granting invalidation on this ground, the court accepted plaintiffs’ position — admitted by default — that the accused design patent lacked novelty relative to prior art.

Because the defendant neither answered nor appeared, the court treated all complaint allegations as uncontroverted and deemed admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. This procedural posture meant plaintiffs did not need to affirmatively prove invalidity through expert testimony or claim construction hearings; the factual basis for invalidity was established through the unrebutted pleadings.

The court also exercised personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) — a provision applicable when a defendant is not subject to any state court’s general jurisdiction but has sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole. The court’s reasoning that defendants “purposely availed themselves of the benefits of the laws of the United States by obtaining United States patents” establishes an important jurisdictional principle: obtaining a U.S. patent can itself constitute sufficient contact with the U.S. to support federal court jurisdiction over that patent holder.

On the state law claims, the court exercised pendent personal jurisdiction over the business interference and unfair competition counts, linking them to the federal patent claims.

Legal Significance

This case joins a growing line of Northern District of Illinois decisions addressing e-commerce marketplace IP abuse — scenarios where sellers on platforms like TEMU or Amazon obtain design patents and then use them as enforcement or competitive interference tools against rival sellers. The Rule 4(k)(2) jurisdictional analysis is particularly instructive for practitioners pursuing sellers who lack U.S. business presence but hold U.S. IP rights.