Kyjen Co. v. Schedule A Defendants: Final Default Judgment in Outward Hound IP Case
Kyjen Co., LLC — maker of the Outward Hound pet product brand — secured a final default judgment against unnamed e-commerce sellers for infringing 10 patents and associated trademarks. The Florida Southern District Court awarded $200,000 in statutory damages and entered a sweeping permanent injunction covering major online marketplaces including Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Temu, and Walmart.
Outward Hound brand owner secures default judgment against online counterfeiters
Kyjen Co., LLC, the company behind the Outward Hound pet product brand, filed this infringement action on April 10, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 0:25-cv-60699) before Judge Raag Singhal. The complaint asserted 10 patents — five design patents (USD755446S, USD705999S, USD706494S, USD706001S, USD706000S), two utility patents (US8316804B2 and US9756835B1), and three additional design patents (USD769546S, USD833086S, USD676619S) — alongside the Outward Hound trademarks, all relating to pet products.
The defendants — identified collectively as individuals, corporations, LLCs, partnerships, and unincorporated associations listed on Schedule A, a standard procedural device used in e-commerce counterfeit actions — did not appear or defend the action. Kyjen moved for final default judgment, which the court granted. On January 6, 2026, the court entered a separate final judgment awarding $200,000 in statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), based on findings of willful infringement of at least one trademark on one type of good, and entered a permanent injunction restraining further infringement across all major e-commerce platforms.
The case closed on April 6, 2026, approximately 361 days after filing. The use of a Schedule A defendant structure is consistent with anti-counterfeiting enforcement strategies targeting anonymous online marketplaces. The statutory damages award reflects both willfulness and deterrence considerations as noted by the court. The specific identities of the defendants listed on Schedule A, and the precise number of seller accounts affected, are not disclosed in the publicly available record reviewed here.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Default Judgment in 361 days
Case duration from filing to close — 361 days in the Florida Southern District
USD0755446S and 9 further Outward Hound patents — pet product designs and utility


Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling pet products through major online marketplaces — including Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Temu, Walmart, or Wish — should treat this case as a signal to audit their product lines against the Outward Hound patent portfolio. The 10 asserted patents cover both ornamental designs and functional utility, meaning a product need not be a direct visual copy to potentially infringe. R&D and product teams developing new pet product lines should run FTO searches before market entry.
Official order — verbatim text
The final default judgment is comprehensive in scope, combining statutory trademark damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) with patent-based injunctive relief across all major e-commerce platforms. The court's explicit reference to willfulness and deterrence in setting the $200,000 award suggests it exercised discretion at the higher end of the per-mark range for a single good type. The injunction's reach to marketplace operators — not merely the sellers — reflects the platform-enforcement model that has become characteristic of Schedule A counterfeit actions in this district.
Default judgment: what the court's ruling means for both parties
Final default judgment entered on motion — no merits contest
A final default judgment is entered when defendants fail to appear or respond to a complaint. The court granted Kyjen's motion and entered judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a). This is not a settlement and does not reflect any agreement by the defendants — it is a court-imposed resolution based on the defendants' failure to participate. The judgment is binding and immediately enforceable.
Court-entered judgmentKyjen secures injunction and $200,000 in statutory damages
Kyjen obtained the full relief sought: a permanent injunction barring defendants from manufacturing, importing, selling, or advertising infringing or counterfeit Outward Hound products, and $200,000 in statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). The court also ordered major marketplace platforms — including Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Temu, and Walmart — to remove infringing listings and sequester infringing goods upon Kyjen's request.
Injunction + $200K damagesDefendants permanently enjoined across major e-commerce platforms
The Schedule A defendants, having not appeared, are permanently enjoined from selling, advertising, or distributing any product infringing the Outward Hound IP — including patents and trademarks — across all major online marketplaces. The injunction extends to associated seller accounts, domain names, and any successor entities. Marketplace operators are directed to remove listings and freeze infringing inventory on Kyjen's request.
Permanent injunction enteredDefault judgments enable rapid marketplace-level enforcement
This case illustrates how brand owners can use Schedule A default judgment actions to obtain court orders directing major platforms — Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Temu, Walmart, Wish, DHgate, Etsy — to de-list infringing sellers at scale. For the pet products sector, where online counterfeiting is prevalent, this enforcement model provides a fast, platform-agnostic remedy without requiring identification of each individual seller before judgment.
Platform-level enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kyjen Co., LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Valeria Munoz | Attorney | Counsel for Kyjen Co., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Kyjen Co., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Raag Singhal | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the pet products and animal accessory IP space
Kyjen's 10-patent portfolio and aggressive Schedule A enforcement signal active IP investment in the pet products sector — here is what the innovation landscape looks like around Outward Hound's technology.
Kyjen's Outward Hound portfolio spans design and utility filings
Kyjen Co. has assembled a portfolio of at least 10 patents covering both the ornamental appearance and functional operation of its Outward Hound pet products. This breadth — from design patents filed under application series US29/ to utility patents — suggests ongoing R&D investment in differentiating both how products look and how they work. Monitoring Kyjen's filing activity can signal which product categories it is prioritising next.
Kyjen IP portfolio activityDesign patent filing trends in pet accessories and outdoor pet gear
The pet accessories and outdoor pet gear market has seen increasing design patent activity as brands seek to protect distinctive product appearances against e-commerce copycats. Filing trends around pet harnesses, feeders, toys, and travel accessories suggest a competitive innovation landscape where ornamental differentiation is a key IP strategy alongside utility protection. Tracking these trends can reveal white space for new product development.
Pet accessory design filingsSchedule A defendants rarely hold defensive IP in e-commerce counterfeit actions
The Schedule A defendants in this case did not appear or assert any defensive IP position. This is consistent with the broader pattern of counterfeit enforcement actions, where anonymous marketplace sellers typically lack registered IP rights. For legitimate pet product competitors, this signals that the primary IP risk in this space comes from established portfolio holders like Kyjen rather than from defensive cross-licensing dynamics.
No defensive IP assertedFunctional pet product innovations adjacent to Outward Hound utility patents
Kyjen's two utility patents (US8316804B2 and US9756835B1) cover functional pet product innovations. R&D teams developing next-generation pet gear — such as smart feeders, ergonomic harnesses, or interactive pet toys — should analyse the claim scope of these patents to identify adjacent functional white space where novel designs may be protectable without conflicting with the Outward Hound utility claims.
Pet product utility white spaceSimilar pet products IP enforcement cases in the Florida Southern District
Schedule A default judgment actions targeting e-commerce counterfeiters of pet products are a recurring pattern in the Florida Southern District Court — explore comparable cases below.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Pet products-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedKyjen Co., LLC's broader IP enforcement history
Kyjen Co., LLC's full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the pet products IP enforcement landscape
Kyjen's default judgment action highlights the growing use of Schedule A litigation to combat online counterfeiting across major e-commerce platforms in the pet products sector.
Schedule A actions are a fast-track enforcement tool for e-commerce brand owners
By naming anonymous marketplace sellers on Schedule A rather than by name, brand owners like Kyjen can obtain default judgments and platform-level injunctions without identifying each defendant individually at filing. IP teams monitoring counterfeit activity on Amazon, AliExpress, or Temu should consider whether this procedural model fits their enforcement strategy.
A 10-patent portfolio creates layered IP protection for pet product designs
Kyjen asserted five design patents, two utility patents, and three additional design patents alongside trademark rights — creating overlapping grounds for infringement claims. Companies in the pet products space designing new products should assess whether their portfolio similarly covers both ornamental design and functional utility to maximise enforcement options against copycat sellers.
Statutory damages under § 1117(c) can be awarded per mark per type of good
The court awarded $200,000 in statutory damages based on willful infringement of at least one trademark on one type of good. Brands with multiple registered marks across multiple product categories may be entitled to substantially higher aggregate awards in comparable default judgment actions — a key consideration when structuring trademark portfolios.
Marketplace operators face direct court orders to de-list and sequester goods
The injunction expressly names Amazon, AliExpress, DHgate, eBay, Etsy, Temu, Walmart, and Wish as platforms required to remove listings and sequester inventory on the plaintiff's request. In-house IP teams at brands selling through these platforms should maintain ready enforcement protocols to convert default judgments into rapid takedowns at the platform level.
Kyjen v Individuals — key questions answered
The Florida Southern District Court entered a final default judgment in favor of Kyjen Co., LLC (Outward Hound) on January 6, 2026. The court awarded $200,000 in statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) for willful trademark infringement and issued a permanent injunction barring defendants from selling or advertising infringing Outward Hound products across major e-commerce platforms including Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Temu, and Walmart.
Kyjen asserted 10 patents: design patents USD0755446S, USD0705999S, USD0706494S, USD0706001S, USD0706000S, USD0769546S, USD0833086S, and USD0676619S, plus utility patents US8316804B2 and US9756835B1 — all relating to Outward Hound pet products. The specific product categories covered by each patent are not detailed in the publicly available record reviewed here.
A final default judgment is entered when defendants fail to appear or respond to the complaint. The Schedule A defendants — anonymous e-commerce sellers — did not participate in the litigation. Kyjen moved for final default judgment, the court granted the motion, and entered judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a). This is a standard procedural outcome in e-commerce anti-counterfeiting actions targeting anonymous online sellers.
The permanent injunction restrains the defendants from manufacturing, importing, advertising, distributing, selling, or offering to sell any goods infringing the Outward Hound trademarks or patents. It extends to online marketplace accounts, domain names, and successor entities. The court also directed marketplace operators — including Amazon, AliExpress, DHgate, eBay, Etsy, Temu, Walmart, and Wish — to remove infringing listings and sequester infringing inventory upon Kyjen's request.
A Schedule A structure allows plaintiffs to file against a group of anonymous or pseudonymous e-commerce sellers identified on a separate schedule, rather than naming each defendant individually in the complaint caption. It is commonly used in anti-counterfeiting actions in the Florida Southern District Court, enabling brand owners to obtain temporary restraining orders, asset freezes, and default judgments against multiple online sellers simultaneously. The specific identities of the Schedule A defendants in this case are not disclosed in the publicly available record.
Monitor Outward Hound IP and protect your pet product portfolio
Run a freedom-to-operate search across all 10 Outward Hound patents before launching new pet product lines. PatSnap Eureka tracks Kyjen's portfolio activity and flags new filings in the pet accessories space.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.