Junjie Peng v. Schedule A Defendants — Default Judgment on Wireless Sports Headband Design Patent
Individual inventor Junjie Peng sued ten e-commerce sellers across Amazon and other online marketplaces for infringing U.S. Design Patent D870,062, covering a wireless sports headband. None of the defaulting defendants responded, and Judge Bucklo entered default judgment in 153 days, awarding $8,393.52 in damages and a permanent injunction against all infringing stores.
Swift default judgment in Illinois e-commerce design patent enforcement
On September 1, 2023, individual inventor Junjie Peng filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against a group of online sellers operating under the umbrella ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ The complaint alleged that ten marketplace storefronts — including NIRUSAR-US, Yukaaa Direct, and Shenglan Rizhao — were selling wireless sports headbands that infringed U.S. Design Patent No. D870,062. The defendants operated primarily through Amazon seller accounts, with seller IDs documented in the judgment.
Five of the named defendants — shenglan rizhao, NIRUSAR-US, qianlinfeng, Yukaaa Direct, and jiaxuli1r — failed to answer or appear. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo granted Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default and default judgment on February 1, 2024, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 284, and 289. The court awarded $8,393.52 in damages calculated from frozen gross revenues and admitted profits, and issued a permanent injunction barring the defaulting defendants from manufacturing, importing, selling, or distributing the infringing products.
The case resolved in 153 days — consistent with the accelerated timeline typical of Schedule A enforcement actions where defendants do not contest. The court’s jurisdiction finding rested on evidence that each defendant store offered shipping to Illinois residents and had made infringing sales there. Five defendants named on Schedule A are not referenced in the default judgment, suggesting their status may have been resolved separately through dismissal, settlement, or other means not reflected in the public default judgment order. That aspect of the record remains unclear from the publicly available docket.
Filing to settlement in 153 days
153 days from filing to default judgment — a swift resolution consistent with uncontested Schedule A enforcement actions
Default Judgment: permanent injunction and $8,393.52 in design patent damages
What is a default judgment in patent litigation?
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to respond to a complaint within the required time. The court deems all well-pleaded allegations admitted and may grant the plaintiff’s requested relief. Here, five defendants never appeared, so Judge Bucklo treated Peng’s infringement allegations as uncontroverted and granted both damages and a permanent injunction without a trial on the merits.
No defense mountedHow were the $8,393.52 damages calculated?
Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289, a design patent holder may recover the infringer’s total profit from the infringing article. The court used frozen gross revenues and admitted profits per store: NIRUSAR-US contributed the largest share ($4,165.64 from $20,828.19 gross), while shenglan rizhao’s award of $1,965.05 was based on admitted profits despite no gross revenue figure being documented. Frozen funds held by Amazon Pay and other processors were ordered released directly to Peng.
§ 289 total profits remedyPermanent injunction binds platforms, not just sellers
The injunction extends beyond the defendants themselves to any third-party service providers with notice — including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish.com, and Dhgate. These platforms were ordered to disable accounts and cease displaying infringing listings within seven calendar days. This platform-binding mechanism is a signature feature of Schedule A litigation and gives the injunction real practical reach even against sellers with no U.S. presence.
Platform takedown orderWhy the N.D. Illinois is a hub for this enforcement model
The Northern District of Illinois has become a preferred venue for Schedule A design patent and trademark enforcement actions against overseas e-commerce sellers. Courts there have repeatedly accepted jurisdiction based on evidence that defendant storefronts offer shipping to Illinois. The model — mass filing, TRO to freeze assets, service by email, default judgment — allows individual rights-holders to enforce design patents at scale against non-appearing defendants with frozen funds funding the damage award.
Established enforcement modelFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Junjie Peng | Company | Individual inventor and IP enforcer — holder of U.S. Design Patent D870,062Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Company | Ten Amazon and online marketplace sellers of wireless sports headbands, operating under Schedule A aliasesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Randolph Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Junjie PengSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven G. Kalberg | Attorney | Counsel for Junjie PengSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stevenson Moore | Attorney | Counsel for Junjie PengSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tong Jin | Attorney | Counsel for Junjie PengSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Elaine E. Bucklo | Chief Judge | Illinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The default judgment establishes liability without contest — the court’s finding of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 is binding on the five named defaulting defendants but has no precedential weight as to claim scope or validity. The damage figure of $8,393.52, drawn from frozen account balances, reflects actual recovered profits rather than a litigated damages award. The permanent injunction’s extension to third-party platforms — with seven-day compliance windows — is the judgment’s most practically significant element, as it operationalises enforcement through Amazon and other marketplaces independent of any further defendant action.
USD0870062S — Wireless Sports Headband Ornamental Design
U.S. Design Patent No. D870,062 (application No. 29/697,304) protects the ornamental design of a wireless sports headband as shown and described in the patent drawings. As a design patent, it covers the specific visual appearance of the product — shape, contour, and overall aesthetic — rather than any functional or technical attribute. Design patents typically grant for 15 years from issuance and are evaluated for infringement using the ‘ordinary observer’ test: would an ordinary purchaser mistake the accused product for the patented design?
In the fast-moving consumer wearables category, design patents over sports headbands and wireless audio accessories have become significant enforcement tools, particularly against overseas marketplace sellers who may copy product aesthetics without licensing. The D870,062 patent’s assertion against ten separate Amazon storefronts in a single action illustrates how a single design registration can generate broad enforcement reach when combined with the Schedule A litigation model. Any company sourcing or selling wireless headband products — especially through Amazon — should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD0870062S?
If your company designs, sources, or distributes wireless sports headbands or closely related wearable audio accessories through Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, or comparable platforms, U.S. Design Patent D870,062 represents a live enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is actively monitoring marketplace listings and prepared to seek asset freezes and default judgments. An FTO analysis should compare your product’s ornamental appearance against the D870,062 drawings using the ordinary observer standard — not a technical claim-by-claim analysis.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to run rapid design patent clearance searches across U.S. design patent databases, flagging visually similar registered designs and active enforcement histories. Claim monitoring alerts can notify your team if new Schedule A actions are filed referencing D870,062 or related design patents, giving you lead time to adjust product aesthetics or seek counsel before account freezes are sought.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0870062S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent enforcement landscape
Schedule A default judgments are reshaping how individual inventors enforce design patents against overseas marketplace sellers.
Asset freezing before judgment is the enforcement model’s core lever
The court’s preliminary injunction froze marketplace accounts and payment processor balances before any judgment was entered. By the time default judgment issued, frozen funds were simply redirected to the plaintiff. Companies selling through Amazon or similar platforms should assess whether their products face design patent exposure before funds are frozen — post-freeze, the practical ability to defend is severely constrained.
Design patent D870,062 covers ornamental appearance, not function
U.S. Design Patent D870,062 protects the specific ornamental design of Peng’s wireless sports headband, not its underlying technology. Competitors can sell functionally similar headbands provided the visual appearance diverges sufficiently from the patented design. An FTO analysis focusing on ornamental similarity — not technical specifications — is the appropriate risk-screening tool for this product category.
Junjie v Partnerships — key questions answered
Judge Elaine Bucklo of the Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment on February 1, 2024 in favour of plaintiff Junjie Peng. Five defaulting defendants were found liable for infringing U.S. Design Patent D870,062, awarded $8,393.52 in damages, and permanently enjoined from selling the infringing wireless sports headband products.
U.S. Design Patent D870,062 (application No. 29/697,304) protects the ornamental design — the specific visual appearance — of a wireless sports headband. As a design patent, it does not cover the underlying technology or functionality of the product, only the aesthetic design as depicted in the patent drawings.
Damages of $8,393.52 were calculated under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289 based on the gross revenues and admitted profits of each defaulting defendant store, drawn from frozen marketplace account data. NIRUSAR-US had the highest gross revenue ($20,828.19) and contributed $4,165.64 to the total. Frozen funds held by Amazon Pay and other processors were ordered released directly to Peng as partial payment.
A Schedule A lawsuit is a multi-defendant enforcement action — common in the N.D. Illinois — where a plaintiff sues numerous online marketplace sellers simultaneously, identifying them by store alias rather than legal entity name. The model typically involves an early TRO to freeze marketplace accounts and payment processor funds, service by email or electronic publication, and — when defendants do not appear — default judgment with damages paid from frozen funds.
Yes. The default judgment expressly binds third-party providers with notice of the order, including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish.com, and Dhgate. These platforms were ordered to disable infringing accounts and cease displaying infringing listings within seven days. Payment processors including Amazon Pay, PayPal, Alipay, and Ant Financial were directed to release frozen funds to Peng within 14 days.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.