Kunshengze v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Finger Stretcher Design Patent
Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. obtained a default judgment and permanent injunction against dozens of unnamed online marketplace sellers accused of infringing USD980990S, a registered design patent covering a finger stretcher device. With no defendant appearing to contest the claims, the Illinois Northern District Court granted willful infringement findings and damages in just 93 days.
Mass-defendant design patent takedown ends in swift default victory
On November 27, 2023, Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd., a China-based e-commerce entity, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a large group of online marketplace sellers — identified collectively as ‘Schedule A’ defendants — for alleged infringement of USD980990S, a U.S. design patent covering a finger stretcher product (Application No. US29/814406). The defendant roster spans dozens of seller handles, storefronts, and entities associated with online retail platforms.
The case closed on February 28, 2024, just 93 days after filing, via default judgment. Because no defendant responded to the plaintiff’s motion for entry of default and default judgment, the court treated their silence as an admission of liability. Judge Martha M. Pacold found that infringement was willful, awarded damages as detailed in the attached final judgment order, and entered a permanent injunction — barring defendants from continued manufacture, sale, or distribution of the accused finger stretcher products.
The 93-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated timelines commonly seen in Schedule A design patent enforcement actions, which frequently proceed to default when targeted sellers fail to engage counsel or respond to U.S. court process. The public record does not disclose the specific damages quantum beyond the structure of the award, nor does it reveal whether any defendants subsequently moved to set aside the default. The $10,000 surety bond posted to secure the temporary restraining order was released to plaintiff’s counsel upon entry of final judgment.
Filing to Default Judgment in 93 days
93 days — faster than the typical 12–24 month district court lifecycle for contested IP cases
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: liability admitted by inaction
When a defendant fails to respond to a complaint or motion for default judgment, a federal court may treat that silence as an admission of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations. Here, no Schedule A defendant appeared, and Judge Pacold accepted the plaintiff’s evidence — including TRO submissions — as establishing willful design patent infringement. The court entered both a damages award and a permanent injunction without any adversarial merits testing.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 defaultPermanent injunction and willfulness finding secured
Kunshengze achieved the full range of available remedies: a court-ordered permanent injunction barring further infringement, a damages award structured by the final judgment order, and a judicial finding of willfulness — which can support enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. The injunction provides practical leverage to pursue platform-level enforcement against the named storefronts, consistent with how Schedule A plaintiffs typically operationalise such rulings through marketplace takedown requests.
Permanent injunction grantedDefendants face injunction and damages with no merits heard
None of the named defendants — spanning scores of seller handles — engaged counsel or contested the claims. As a result, they bear a willful infringement finding and are subject to the permanent injunction without any judicial consideration of validity, claim scope, or non-infringement defences. Defendants retain the procedural right to move to set aside a default judgment under Rule 60(b), but the burden is high and success rates are low, particularly when the defaulting party had actual notice of the proceedings.
No appearance; default bindsDesign patent enforcement via Schedule A remains a rapid-strike tool
This case is consistent with a well-established enforcement pattern in which design patent holders — often Chinese e-commerce plaintiffs — file against large cohorts of anonymous online sellers in favourable venues such as N.D. Illinois. The speed of resolution (93 days to default judgment) underscores the asymmetry: a plaintiff with a registered design patent and $10,000 for a TRO bond can achieve injunctive relief and damages findings at scale against sellers who either lack resources or are unaware of U.S. litigation obligations.
Schedule A enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. | Company | China-based e-commerce seller — holder of design patent USD0980990S for finger stretcherSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | THE PARTNERSHIPS and UNIN-CORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE ‘A’ | Individual | Dozens of anonymous online marketplace sellers operating under pseudonymous storefrontsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Art Zone | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | chencong2134 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Fire of Stars | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | iamnotcool | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | lingyeqin | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | linpengsope | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | N1ARSTOREOFFICIAL | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others too numerous to list: dalehowdin, dandelion002, zhonghuayan, shuangying2020, AWL personal care store, dandelion001, richmoney, wuyuqing4932, caopp, qianlei6393, Shenzhen Optical Valley Lighting Technology C…, FGCC, renyu2918, FireGluvzDOTCOM, IG fashion Co., Ltd., huijuanfan, yanjinhui2286, Hello Nicola, Pavkey Products, Lucky QAQA, Hekiway, CSA SYSTEMS, yangcong2134, SHARK, daichangyao4945, maruJack, Suli Store, Superhero, luojiasheng, sunzhao780801, yaolele2134, Reddy4, Brandon P Mitchell, xd865, vinice, chejietong, xiyoudrink, mopan, ancientdivination, yuanxin001, FD8569, liangzhijun0998, CHild Prodigy Store, zhouxuejiao5550, jianhua66, Hillsback, time1234567, Brand Mall, space12345678, maopo, yuanxin008, Zhuo Mei Heng Tong Trade, songjiang-xiaochidian, ZZXzhengzhixi, Wei Bo Trading Co., Ltd., YXHM QUEEN, HH_mango, bigbig111, Fenas, Yunshao Qijian, Ghuncornet Cava, wangjingshuiguo, liuyayun668, fairyland, Otecola, ONTARIOCORP1000359435, DecHomeLover, dabaozha, Sunny Store-753, POLLFIRE, Fashion BOYuan, Shiny Shop1988, yanlinglll, 32simplet, XMTB2O7XZ, Clickeo, Clebourg Clairet, yuanxin009, Liuyuchen, liyuebin5409, brighturlifee, ZWJweijian | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | wangenyuan2134 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | yanghongsheng5118 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Depeng Bi | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Konrad Val Sherinian | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Martha M. Pacold | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s default judgment order rests on a two-step evidentiary foundation: the substantive record submitted in support of the TRO, and the legal admission of liability created by the defendants’ silence. By granting the motion in full — including a willfulness finding — Judge Pacold applied the standard principle that a defaulting party concedes all well-pleaded factual allegations. The permanent injunction analysis tracks the traditional four-factor eBay framework, with the court noting irreparable harm from lost exclusivity and inadequacy of monetary damages, and finding the public interest and balance of hardships both favour injunctive relief in the absence of any counter-argument.
USD0980990S — finger stretcher device ornamental design
USD0980990S is a U.S. design patent — identified by Application No. US29/814406 — protecting the ornamental appearance of a finger stretcher product. Design patents, unlike utility patents, cover the visual and aesthetic characteristics of an article of manufacture rather than its functional attributes. Protection attaches to the specific shape, configuration, or surface ornamentation shown in the patent drawings. Design patents have a term of 15 years from grant and do not require maintenance fees, making them a cost-efficient tool for consumer product companies seeking to deter copycat manufacturing.
In the context of online marketplace enforcement, design patents on consumer accessories and rehabilitation devices carry strategic weight disproportionate to their filing cost. A single registered design can anchor TRO motions, platform takedown requests, and default judgment campaigns against dozens of sellers simultaneously. For competitors and new market entrants in the finger stretcher and hand rehabilitation accessory segment, the existence of USD0980990S suggests that the ornamental design of competing products warrants careful review before launch. The patent’s assertion against a broad Schedule A defendant list signals active, aggressive enforcement intent.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD0980990S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling finger stretcher devices — or adjacent hand rehabilitation and exercise accessories — on U.S. marketplaces should treat USD0980990S as a live enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that the patent holder has already pursued and obtained default judgments against marketplace sellers. If your product’s ornamental appearance is similar to the design shown in the patent drawings, you are potentially within the scope of a future Schedule A complaint, even if your product serves an identical functional purpose through a different mechanism.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can cross-reference your product’s visual design against the claims and drawings of USD0980990S and related design patent families, flagging similarity risks before you list. Eureka also surfaces the broader design patent landscape in the hand rehabilitation and finger exercise device space, helping R&D and product teams identify which ornamental features require redesign or design-around to achieve a cleaner freedom-to-operate position in the U.S. market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0980990S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases comparable to this finger stretcher design patent enforcement action, filed in the Northern District of Illinois against Schedule A online marketplace defendants.
What this case signals for the online retail and design patent IP landscape
Schedule A design patent actions continue to move fast and end in default — here is what that means for sellers and IP holders.
Registration of design patents enables rapid TRO and default judgment cycles
Kunshengze’s ability to secure a TRO and default judgment within 93 days rests on one foundational asset: a registered U.S. design patent. For product companies selling on marketplaces, filing design patents on commercially active SKUs creates enforceable rights that courts will act on even when defendants are anonymous or offshore.
Online sellers ignoring U.S. court notices face binding willfulness findings
A willfulness finding entered by default carries the same legal weight as one contested at trial. Marketplace sellers — particularly those operating under pseudonymous handles — who receive service and fail to respond risk permanent injunctions, enhanced damages exposure, and platform de-listing, all without any substantive defence ever being heard.
Shenzhen v PARTNERSHIPS — key questions answered
The case ended in a default judgment in favour of plaintiff Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. on February 28, 2024. No defendant appeared or responded to the motion. Judge Pacold entered a permanent injunction and damages award, finding infringement of design patent USD0980990S was willful. The case closed 93 days after filing.
USD0980990S is a U.S. design patent with Application No. US29/814406 that protects the ornamental design of a finger stretcher device. Design patents cover the visual appearance of a product rather than its functional features. The patent was asserted by Shenzhen Kunshengze against multiple online marketplace sellers in Case No. 1:23-cv-16238.
A Schedule A lawsuit names a large group of anonymous online sellers — often identified only by marketplace handles — as defendants in a single complaint. The plaintiff typically seeks a TRO to freeze assets or remove listings, then moves for default judgment when defendants fail to appear. N.D. Illinois is a common venue for these actions due to favourable procedural history. This case followed that pattern precisely, resolving in 93 days.
A willful infringement finding, even one entered on default, enables the court to award enhanced damages of up to three times actual damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. It also strengthens a plaintiff’s position in subsequent platform enforcement. Defendants who defaulted retain the right to move to set aside the judgment under Rule 60(b), but must show good cause, a meritorious defence, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff — a high bar in practice.
Plaintiff Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. was represented by Depeng Bi and Konrad Val Sherinian of The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC, located in Naperville, Illinois. No defendant agents or law firms are recorded in the case docket, consistent with the default judgment outcome. The surety bond was returned to The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC upon entry of final judgment.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.