Husky v. Ningbo Ao Sheng: Default Judgment & Permanent Injunction on Five Mold Patents
Husky Injection Molding Systems secured a default judgment and permanent injunction against Chinese mold manufacturer Ningbo Ao Sheng Mold Co. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting five patents covering cavity insert and molding apparatus technology. The case closed 495 days after filing with no substantive defence entered by the defendant.
Husky secures permanent injunction against Chinese mold copycat via default
Filed on 9 May 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas, this infringement action pits Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd. — a major global supplier of injection molding equipment — against Ningbo Ao Sheng Mold Co., Ltd. (trading as AOSIMI), a Chinese manufacturer accused of infringing five Husky patents across its cavity insert and molding apparatus product lines. The asserted patents include US10093053B2, US9713891B2, US11794375B2, US7645132B2, and US8834149B2, all covering core aspects of PET preform molding technology, including the HyPET400 HPP platform.
The case resolved on 16 September 2025 when the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in full and granted Husky’s Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction. Because Ningbo Ao Sheng did not file objections to the Magistrate’s Report, the Court applied a deferential ‘clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’ standard of review. The permanent injunction bars AOSIMI’s infringing cavity insert, mold, and molding apparatus products from the US market.
The 495-day duration is longer than a typical default proceeding, suggesting that service of process on a Chinese manufacturer and default procedural steps consumed considerable time before the motion was ripe. The public record does not disclose any damages quantum, licensing terms, or settlement component — the outcome is an injunction only, consistent with Husky prioritising market exclusion over monetary recovery. Whether Husky pursues separate damages proceedings or customs enforcement actions remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to Injunction Granted in 495 days
495 days — above average for an E.D. Texas case ending in default judgment
Default judgment granted: what the permanent injunction means for both parties
Default judgment: defendant’s failure to appear seals the outcome
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to meaningfully defend the action. Here, Ningbo Ao Sheng did not contest the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, triggering a highly deferential standard of review. The Court found no clear error in the Report and adopted it wholesale, granting both default judgment on liability and a permanent injunction — the strongest form of equitable relief available in patent litigation.
Rule 55 default procedureHusky obtains market exclusion — without a full merits trial
Husky’s decision to pursue a permanent injunction rather than (or in addition to) damages reflects a strategic priority: locking a Chinese competitor out of the US market entirely. The injunction covers AOSIMI’s cavity insert, mold, and molding apparatus products. Because judgment was entered on default, Husky’s five patents were never substantively challenged, leaving them intact and fully enforceable for their remaining terms.
Permanent injunction securedAOSIMI faces US market ban with no appellate safety valve on the merits
Ningbo Ao Sheng’s failure to appear forfeits most appellate arguments. A defendant in default cannot typically appeal on the merits of infringement or validity — relief is limited to challenging the adequacy of service, subject-matter jurisdiction, or the scope of the injunction. AOSIMI’s US commercial operations for the infringing product lines are effectively foreclosed absent a successful motion to vacate the default, which faces a high bar.
US market access foreclosedSignal to the market: Husky is willing to litigate to injunction against Chinese rivals
This outcome signals that Husky is prepared to use US litigation aggressively to protect its injection molding IP portfolio against Chinese manufacturers. Competitors and distributors handling AOSIMI-sourced products should treat this injunction as a customs and supply-chain risk event. Other mold manufacturers with similar cavity insert designs should urgently audit their exposure to Husky’s five asserted patents before entering the US market.
Supply-chain IP riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd. | Company | Global injection molding equipment OEM — holder of US10093053B2 and four further mold patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ningbo Ao Sheng Mold Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese mold manufacturer (AOSIMI) accused of infringing Husky cavity insert and apparatus patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Glenn E. Forbis | Attorney | Counsel for Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | J. Bradley Luchsinger | Attorney | Counsel for Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeremiah John Foley | Attorney | Counsel for Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Keith Driscoll | Attorney | Counsel for Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew L. Cutler | Attorney | Counsel for Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Charles Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Harness Dickey & Pierce PLC (St Louis) | Law Firm | Representing Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Harness Dickey & Pierce -Troy MI | Law Firm | Representing Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Harness Ip | Law Firm | Representing Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Scheef & Stone LLP (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jun Ye | Attorney | Counsel for Ningbo Ao Sheng Mold Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Boldt | Attorney | Counsel for Ningbo Ao Sheng Mold Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shaoyi Che | Attorney | Counsel for Ningbo Ao Sheng Mold Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Getech Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Ningbo Ao Sheng Mold Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | YoungZeal LLP | Law Firm | Representing Ningbo Ao Sheng Mold Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order is deliberately narrow in its reasoning: it adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report wholesale under the deferential ‘clearly erroneous’ standard triggered by Ningbo Ao Sheng’s failure to object. This means the substantive merits of infringement and patent validity were never adjudicated on the record. The permanent injunction’s scope — covering cavity insert, mold, and molding apparatus products — tracks Husky’s pleadings directly. For enforcement purposes, the injunction is immediately operative, and any violation by AOSIMI or its US agents could trigger contempt proceedings.
US10093053B2 — PET preform cavity insert and injection molding apparatus
The five asserted patents — US10093053B2 (app. 2017), US9713891B2 (app. 2014), US11794375B2 (app. 2019), US7645132B2 (app. 2006), and US8834149B2 (app. 2012) — collectively cover Husky’s core injection molding technology: cavity insert design, mold apparatus architecture, and molding system components used in high-output PET preform production. The portfolio spans over a decade of filing activity, reflecting Husky’s sustained R&D investment in the HyPET platform and related mold tooling.
This five-patent stack is strategically significant because it covers both the hardware (cavity inserts, mold structures) and system-level (molding apparatus) aspects of PET preform manufacturing — a high-volume segment serving beverage, food, and pharmaceutical packaging. Any manufacturer producing compatible cavity inserts or mold tooling for the global PET market must assess exposure to this portfolio, particularly given Husky’s demonstrated willingness to pursue litigation to permanent injunction in US courts.
Should you run an FTO analysis against Husky’s US10093053B2 portfolio?
If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or distributes cavity inserts, injection molds, or molding apparatus products for PET preform production — or sources tooling from Chinese mold manufacturers — this case is a direct FTO trigger. The permanent injunction and Husky’s multi-patent enforcement posture indicate active monitoring of the US market for competing products. Distributors and importers should not assume that a supplier’s absence from US litigation history equals freedom to operate.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent lets R&D and IP teams run automated claim-by-claim mapping across all five Husky patents simultaneously, identifying which claims pose the highest infringement risk for specific product configurations. Eureka can also flag continuation and divisional applications that may extend Husky’s coverage beyond the asserted patents — critical intelligence for product teams planning next-generation mold designs for the US market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10093053B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar injection molding patent enforcement cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving injection molding, cavity insert, and mold apparatus patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas — including default judgments and permanent injunction proceedings.
What this case signals for the injection molding IP landscape
Husky’s default judgment strategy reveals a calculated enforcement posture that has direct implications for mold manufacturers and their US distribution partners.
Chinese mold OEMs face elevated litigation risk in E.D. Texas
The Eastern District of Texas remains a plaintiff-friendly venue for patent enforcement. This case demonstrates that a well-resourced patent holder like Husky can secure a permanent injunction even without a full merits trial if the defendant fails to appear — a realistic scenario for smaller Chinese manufacturers unfamiliar with US litigation procedure.
Permanent injunction without damages: a market-exclusion-first strategy
Husky’s election to pursue injunctive relief rather than damages suggests its primary concern is protecting US market share for products like the HyPET400 HPP platform. Companies importing competing mold and cavity insert products should conduct immediate FTO analysis against Husky’s five asserted patents to assess customs seizure and injunction risk.
Husky v Ningbo — key questions answered
Husky asserted five patents: US10093053B2, US9713891B2, US11794375B2, US7645132B2, and US8834149B2. All relate to injection molding technology including cavity insert design and molding apparatus structures used in PET preform production. The asserted products included AOSIMI’s cavity insert, mold, and molding apparatus product lines as well as Husky’s own HyPET400 HPP machine.
Ningbo Ao Sheng failed to mount a substantive defence and did not file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Under Fifth Circuit precedent (United States v. Wilson), this triggered a deferential ‘clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’ standard of review. The District Court found no clear error and adopted the Report, granting both default judgment and the permanent injunction Husky sought.
The permanent injunction covers AOSIMI’s cavity insert products, mold products, and molding apparatus products that were found to infringe Husky’s asserted patents. The injunction bars these products from the US market. The public record does not disclose specific geographic or supply-chain limitations beyond the infringing product categories identified in Husky’s motion.
A defendant in default has very limited appellate options. Appeals on the merits of infringement or patent validity are generally foreclosed. Ningbo Ao Sheng’s most viable post-judgment path would be a motion to vacate the default under FRCP 55(c) or 60(b), arguing excusable neglect, lack of proper service, or lack of jurisdiction — all of which carry a high evidentiary burden. The public record does not indicate any such motion has been filed.
Manufacturers, importers, and distributors of cavity inserts or injection mold apparatus products for PET preform production should treat Husky’s five-patent stack as an active enforcement risk. The patents span application dates from 2006 to 2019, meaning some claims will remain in force until at least the late 2030s. This case demonstrates Husky’s willingness to pursue US litigation to permanent injunction — making FTO analysis against this portfolio a commercial necessity for market participants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.