Jfxd Trx Acq v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in Exercise Grip Design Patent Case
Jfxd Trx Acq, LLC secured a default judgment in 116 days against a roster of e-commerce sellers accused of infringing USD669945S, a design patent for an exercise device hand grip. The Illinois Northern District Court granted plaintiff’s motion in its entirety after defendants — predominantly marketplace storefronts — failed to appear or respond.
E-Commerce Design Patent Sweep: Default Judgment in Under Four Months
Filed on 26 January 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings, this case saw Jfxd Trx Acq, LLC assert U.S. Design Patent USD669945S — covering the ornamental appearance of a hand grip for an exercise device — against a broad group of defendants identified collectively as partnerships and unincorporated associations on Schedule A. Named defendants included Slim Panda Sports, Boyou Store, Fanhongtan, leipupa-US, Macpart, Pantik, simhoaus, TrendyNow Direct, and Zhidong Chen, among numerous others including sellers such as INNSTAR, ZUKAM Direct, and Moshang Co., Ltd.
The case closed on 21 May 2024 — just 116 days after filing — when Judge Cummings granted plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in its entirety. The court deemed all defaulting defendants in default and entered final judgment against them, constituting a merits victory for Jfxd Trx Acq. The defendants, predominantly small e-commerce storefronts, did not retain counsel or engage with the proceedings, which is consistent with Schedule A enforcement patterns in this district.
The sub-four-month resolution is notably swift and typical of uncontested Schedule A default proceedings, which the Northern District of Illinois handles in volume. What drove the outcome is the structural dynamic of such cases: overseas marketplace sellers often fail to appear, leading to default. What remains unknown from the public record is the quantum of damages or injunctive relief awarded, and whether any asset freezes obtained at the TRO stage translated into recoveries against specific defendants.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 116 days
116 days — fast resolution consistent with uncontested Schedule A default proceedings
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: plaintiff wins without a contested trial
When defendants fail to appear or respond to a complaint, the court may enter a default judgment on the merits in favour of the plaintiff. Here, Judge Cummings granted the motion in its entirety, meaning all liability and relief sought was awarded without challenge. This is a merits-based outcome — not a procedural dismissal — and carries full legal force against the named defaulting defendants.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 defaultJfxd Trx Acq obtains enforceable judgment against all defaulting sellers
The final judgment is entered against each defaulting defendant, giving Jfxd Trx Acq a legally enforceable order. In Schedule A cases, this typically enables the plaintiff to enforce injunctions, compel marketplace platforms to delist infringing listings, and pursue any frozen funds held by payment processors. The design patent USD669945S remains intact and its enforceability is uncontested in this proceeding.
Enforceable final judgmentSellers deemed in default face injunctions and potential asset seizure
Defendants who failed to appear are now subject to a final judgment they cannot easily undo. Vacating a default judgment requires demonstrating good cause, a meritorious defence, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff — a high bar. For small marketplace storefronts, this judgment may result in delisted products, frozen PayPal or marketplace balances, and reputational consequences across platforms that monitor litigation outcomes.
Default — limited appeal optionsSchedule A enforcement remains an effective tool for design patent holders
This case reinforces the Northern District of Illinois as a preferred venue for IP holders targeting infringing e-commerce sellers. The swift 116-day resolution with a full plaintiff victory signals that design patent holders in the fitness accessories sector can obtain meaningful enforcement outcomes against non-appearing marketplace defendants. Companies manufacturing or distributing exercise device grips with similar ornamental designs should assess their exposure to USD669945S.
Fitness accessories IP riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Jfxd Trx Acq, LLC | Company | Exercise device IP holding company — holder of USD669945S ornamental design patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Multiple e-commerce marketplace storefronts and individuals accused of selling infringing exercise gripsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Slim Panda Sports | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Boyou Store | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Fanhongtan | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | leipupa-US | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Macpart | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others too numerous to list: Moshang Co.,Ltd., ShenzhenGuangyipengTechnology Co . Ltd, VBNING, ORANGE FOREST, ZUKAM Direct, tonginaUS, Fcflower, INNSTAR, JerryDong, YIXin Store, Tootye us, nuolate2019, Ci Ke | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Pantik | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | simhoaus | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | TrendyNow Direct | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Zhidong Chen | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for Jfxd Trx Acq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Daniel Burnham | Attorney | Counsel for Jfxd Trx Acq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin R. Gaudio | Attorney | Counsel for Jfxd Trx Acq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Tyler Joseph | Attorney | Counsel for Jfxd Trx Acq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greer Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Jfxd Trx Acq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeffrey I Cummings | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granting plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment ‘in its entirety’ is unambiguous: all relief sought was awarded without qualification. The phrase ‘deemed in default’ carries formal legal weight — it establishes that defendants’ failure to appear constitutes an admission of the well-pleaded allegations. For Jfxd Trx Acq, this is a full merits victory. For the named defendants, the judgment is immediately enforceable and vacatur requires meeting a stringent three-factor standard, making reversal unlikely absent extraordinary circumstances.
USD669945S — Ornamental Design for an Exercise Device Hand Grip
USD669945S (application number US29/398414) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a hand grip for an exercise device. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the visual characteristics of a product as depicted in the patent drawings — not underlying functionality. The scope of protection is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary purchaser would confuse the accused product with the patented design. The patent’s specific claim scope turns on the drawings filed with the application.
Design patents on fitness accessories have become increasingly valuable enforcement instruments as the e-commerce fitness market has expanded. USD669945S sits in a product category — exercise grip accessories — that is heavily replicated by low-cost overseas manufacturers selling through Amazon, eBay, and similar platforms. For competitors and distributors, the key risk is not direct copying but sufficient visual similarity to trigger the ordinary observer test. IP acquirers like Jfxd Trx Acq typically conduct systematic landscape searches before acquiring such patents, suggesting the patent was assessed as commercially viable for enforcement.
Should you run an FTO against USD669945S before launching a new exercise grip?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing hand grips for exercise devices — whether marketed as TRX-compatible accessories, resistance band handles, or gym grip attachments — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against USD669945S before product launch. This case confirms the patent is actively enforced by an IP holding entity prepared to pursue numerous marketplace sellers simultaneously. The default judgment outcome means the patent’s validity was not tested, so FTO analysis should also include validity assessment.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD669945S against your proposed product design, identify design-arounds, and surface related design and utility patent families in the exercise accessories space. Eureka can also flag whether Jfxd Trx Acq holds additional related patents that could extend enforcement exposure beyond this single design registration.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0669945S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Cases: Exercise Accessories & Schedule A Enforcement
Related design patent infringement cases involving exercise equipment accessories filed in the Northern District of Illinois using the Schedule A multi-defendant approach.
What this case signals for the fitness accessories IP landscape
This default judgment reinforces the efficiency of Schedule A design patent enforcement and the ongoing vulnerability of marketplace sellers in the fitness space.
Northern District of Illinois remains the premier Schedule A enforcement venue
The 116-day resolution reflects a well-worn litigation playbook in this district. Design patent holders targeting e-commerce sellers — particularly those operating from overseas — consistently obtain default judgments here. Any business selling exercise accessories on marketplace platforms should treat N.D. Ill. filings as a material enforcement risk.
Design patents on fitness accessories are actively policed by IP acquirers
Jfxd Trx Acq is an IP acquisition vehicle, not a product manufacturer. This case is consistent with a broader trend of non-practising entities acquiring design patents on consumer fitness accessories and pursuing marketplace sellers en masse. The unenforced design rights of an original creator can become an enforcement asset in different hands.
Jfxd v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in favour of plaintiff Jfxd Trx Acq, LLC on 21 May 2024. Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings granted the plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in its entirety. All named defendants were deemed in default. The case closed 116 days after filing.
The plaintiff asserted U.S. Design Patent USD669945S (application number US29/398414), which covers the ornamental design of a hand grip for an exercise device. Design patents protect the visual appearance of a product as depicted in patent drawings, assessed under the ordinary observer standard.
The defendants are a large group of e-commerce marketplace sellers identified on Schedule A, including Slim Panda Sports, Boyou Store, Fanhongtan, leipupa-US, Macpart, Pantik, simhoaus, TrendyNow Direct, Zhidong Chen, and numerous others including INNSTAR, ZUKAM Direct, and Moshang Co., Ltd., among others. None retained counsel or appeared in the proceedings.
A Schedule A complaint is a litigation strategy used primarily in the Northern District of Illinois where a plaintiff names many defendants — typically anonymous or pseudonymous e-commerce sellers — in a single action. Defendants are identified by their marketplace usernames rather than legal names. Plaintiffs frequently seek temporary restraining orders to freeze seller accounts, followed by default judgment when sellers fail to appear.
Defendants can move to vacate a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), but must satisfy three factors: good cause for the default, a meritorious defence to the underlying claims, and absence of prejudice to the plaintiff if relief is granted. For overseas marketplace sellers, meeting this bar is typically difficult, and the time and cost of engaging U.S. counsel often exceeds the value at stake.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.