Jetteo LLC v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Sandwich Cutter Patents
Jetteo, LLC sued dozens of anonymous e-commerce sellers for infringing two sandwich cutter patents — a utility patent (US11409647) and a design patent (USD909809) — across platforms including Amazon, Temu, and AliExpress. After defendants failed to respond, the Northern District of Illinois granted a full default judgment, a permanent injunction, and ordered frozen account assets up to $1,666.83 transferred to Jetteo.
Anonymous e-commerce sellers defeated by default on sandwich cutter IP
On September 18, 2024, Jetteo, LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-08575) against an unspecified group of e-commerce sellers identified only by their online seller aliases on Schedule A. Jetteo alleged infringement of US Patent No. 11,409,647 — a utility patent covering sandwich cutter technology — and Design Patent No. D909,809, both directed at sandwich cutter products sold through major online marketplaces including Amazon, eBay, Temu, AliExpress, and Walmart.
The case closed on April 10, 2025, via default judgment after the defendant sellers failed to answer the complaint or otherwise appear. The court found that Jetteo had properly completed service of process, that the allegations were therefore deemed admitted, and that defendants were liable for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Jetteo was awarded damages under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289 up to $1,666.83, sourced from previously frozen defendant financial accounts held by third-party payment processors.
The 204-day resolution timeline is consistent with the accelerated pace typical of Schedule A mass e-commerce enforcement actions, where defendants often fail to engage and preliminary injunctions with asset freezes effectively resolve the dispute early. The modest damages figure — capped at frozen account balances — suggests defendants’ infringing storefronts were relatively low-volume or had limited funds at the time of the freeze. What remains unknown from the public record is the total number of defendant seller aliases named on Schedule A and the cumulative volume of infringing product sales across all platforms.
Filing to Default Judgment in 204 days
204 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the median N.D. Illinois patent case
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: allegations deemed admitted without trial
When defendants fail to respond to a properly served complaint, the court may enter default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Here, Judge Cummings found that service was properly completed and that the defendants had been afforded opportunity to answer. Their silence meant all of Jetteo’s infringement allegations were deemed admitted as a matter of law — no merits trial was required to establish liability.
Rule 55 default judgmentJetteo secures permanent injunction and frozen asset transfer
Jetteo obtained the full range of relief sought: a permanent injunction barring defendants from making, selling, or importing the infringing sandwich cutters; mandatory cooperation from marketplace platforms to disable associated listings; and transfer of frozen account balances up to $1,666.83. The $10,000 cash bond posted at the outset was also returned. The permanent injunction is enforceable against defendants and any entities acting in concert with them.
Full injunctive relief grantedDefaulting sellers face permanent ban and asset seizure
Defendants who failed to appear now face a permanent federal court injunction and have had their marketplace account balances seized. Any attempt to re-enter the market under new seller aliases or entities to circumvent the injunction is expressly prohibited by the order. Platform operators including Amazon, PayPal, eBay, Alipay, and Walmart were ordered to release frozen funds to Jetteo within seven calendar days of receiving the order.
Permanent injunction and asset freezeMarketplace enforcement model validated for consumer product IP
This outcome reinforces the effectiveness of the Schedule A enforcement playbook for consumer product patent holders targeting anonymous overseas e-commerce sellers. By securing a TRO with asset freeze early, plaintiffs effectively neutralise defendants’ incentive to appear. The court’s willingness to order third-party platform compliance — across Amazon, Temu, Walmart, AliExpress, and eBay — signals continued judicial support for this enforcement strategy in N.D. Illinois.
Schedule A enforcement confirmedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Jetteo, LLC | Company | Consumer products IP holder — asserting US11409647B2 and USD909809S sandwich cutter patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A, | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers operating across Amazon, Temu, AliExpress, eBay, and WalmartSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Allen Justin Poplin | Attorney | Counsel for Jetteo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wangxue Deng | Attorney | Counsel for Jetteo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Avek IP LLC | Law Firm | Representing Jetteo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeffrey I Cummings | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment is comprehensive in scope: the court expressly found personal jurisdiction over foreign e-commerce defendants based on their deliberate targeting of U.S. consumers, a key threshold in Schedule A actions. The damages award — capped at $1,666.83 from frozen accounts — reflects the practical ceiling imposed by pre-judgment asset restraint rather than a merits-based damages assessment. The permanent injunction extends to affiliates, agents, and successor entities, and the order’s direct enforceability against named third-party platforms (Amazon, PayPal, Temu, eBay) distinguishes it from injunctions that require subsequent platform compliance proceedings.
US11409647B2 & USD909809S — Sandwich Cutter Utility and Design Patents
US Patent No. 11,409,647 (application no. US16/856425) is a utility patent protecting the functional aspects of a sandwich cutter product — the mechanical configuration, cutting mechanism, or operational method that distinguishes Jetteo’s product from prior art. Design Patent No. D909,809 (application no. US29/691850) protects the ornamental appearance of the same product category. Together, these patents provide layered IP protection: one covers how the product works, the other how it looks — a dual-layer strategy increasingly common in consumer product IP portfolios.
The consumer kitchenware and food preparation accessories market is heavily populated by low-cost overseas manufacturers, making utility and design patent protection essential for brands seeking to differentiate on Amazon and similar platforms. The ‘D’ design patent is particularly potent in e-commerce enforcement because infringement is assessed by the overall visual impression — making it easier to establish against copycat listings. Any competitor manufacturing or selling sandwich cutter products with similar appearance or functional configuration should treat these patents as active enforcement assets, particularly given Jetteo’s demonstrated willingness to litigate and secure platform-level injunctions.
Should you run an FTO against US11409647B2 and USD909809S?
Any company — domestic or international — manufacturing, importing, or selling sandwich cutter or similar food-cutting tools for the U.S. market should assess freedom to operate against both patents. The utility patent’s claim scope determines whether a functionally similar cutting mechanism infringes, while the design patent’s ornamental scope could capture visually similar products even with different internal mechanics. This case demonstrates that Jetteo is an active enforcer with an established litigation framework and pre-existing platform relationships for rapid injunctive relief.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim boundaries of US11409647B2 against your product’s functional specification in minutes, and cross-reference USD909809S’s ornamental scope against your product’s visual profile. Eureka also surfaces related family members, continuation risk, and prior art that may support design-around strategies — giving your product and IP teams a defensible FTO position before entering or expanding in the U.S. kitchenware market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11409647B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving consumer product utility and design patent enforcement against anonymous e-commerce sellers in the Northern District of Illinois, including comparable Schedule A default judgment actions.
What this case signals for the consumer product patent IP landscape
This default judgment reinforces N.D. Illinois as the preferred venue for Schedule A e-commerce patent enforcement actions.
Asset freeze at TRO stage is the strategic core of this model
The preliminary injunction and associated asset freeze — obtained before defendants had any opportunity to liquidate accounts — is what makes the Schedule A approach effective. Patent holders with consumer product IP should evaluate whether this two-patent (utility + design) pairing strengthens their TRO applications by demonstrating multiple infringement vectors.
Design + utility patent pairing increases enforcement leverage
Jetteo asserted both a utility patent (US11409647) and a design patent (USD909809). This dual-patent strategy is tactically significant: design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 289 allow disgorgement of total profits, while utility patents support actual damages under § 284. Combining both provides more flexible damages arguments — particularly relevant when frozen account balances are the practical ceiling.
Jetteo v Partnerships — key questions answered
Jetteo, LLC asserted two patents: US Patent No. 11,409,647 (a utility patent covering sandwich cutter technology, app. no. US16/856425) and Design Patent No. D909,809 (covering the ornamental design of the product, app. no. US29/691850). Both patents were found infringed, and default judgment was entered on both counts.
Schedule A defendants are anonymous or pseudonymous online sellers identified by their marketplace aliases rather than legal names. Plaintiffs file against ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ and attach a sealed list of seller aliases. This approach is common in N.D. Illinois for mass enforcement actions targeting overseas e-commerce infringers on platforms like Amazon, Temu, and AliExpress.
The court awarded damages of up to $1,666.83 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289, sourced from frozen financial accounts held by third-party payment processors including PayPal, eBay, Alipay, Alibaba, Amazon Pay, and Walmart. This figure reflects the practical ceiling imposed by the pre-judgment asset freeze rather than a separately calculated damages assessment.
Yes. The court granted a permanent injunction barring defaulting defendants, their affiliates, and successor entities from making, using, selling, or importing the infringing sandwich cutter products. Third-party platforms — including Amazon, eBay, Temu, AliExpress, Walmart, and Target — were also ordered to disable and cease displaying advertisements associated with the infringing products.
Asserting both patent types provides tactical advantages in damages and infringement analysis. A design patent under 35 U.S.C. § 289 allows recovery of a defendant’s total profits from the infringing article — a potentially higher damages base than actual damages under § 284 for utility patents. The visual similarity test for design patents can also be easier to establish from marketplace product images alone, strengthening TRO applications even before full discovery.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.