Modalmed Inc. Wins Default Judgment in Eye Massager Patent Battle
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Modalmed Inc. v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| Case Number | 1:24-cv-11780 (N.D. Ill.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Duration | Nov 2024 – Jan 2026 426 days |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win — Default Judgment, Financial Freeze & Transfer |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Headwear Eye Massagers |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent holder with a portfolio focused on optical and wearable headwear technology, specifically eye care and massage devices. Represented by Avek IP LLC.
🛡️ Defendant
Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A — anonymous e-commerce sellers operating on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, and Wish.
Patents at Issue
This landmark case involved two U.S. patents covering optical and wearable headwear technology, specifically eye massager functionality and wearable optics design. Both patents fall within the broader field of wearable wellness technology.
- • U.S. Patent No. 10,684,483 B2 — Optical headwear technology with relevance to eye massager functionality.
- • U.S. Patent No. 11,372,252 B2 — Headwear-integrated vision and massage systems.
Designing a similar product?
Check if your wearable wellness product design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The court entered a final default judgment against all Defaulting Defendants, granting Modalmed both monetary damages and a sweeping financial enforcement mechanism. Critically, the judgment authorized:
- The immediate freezing of financial accounts held by Defaulting Defendants, including accounts of defendants’ owners and managers.
- The transfer of frozen funds by Third Party Providers (payment processors, marketplace platforms) directly to Modalmed or its counsel within seven (7) calendar days of receiving the Order.
- A finding of no just reason for delay, making the judgment immediately final and enforceable.
Specific damages amounts awarded against each individual defendant were referenced in the Order but were not disclosed publicly.
Key Legal Issues
The case proceeded on a straightforward patent infringement action theory. Because defendants failed to appear, there was no adversarial claim construction, no validity challenge, and no contested infringement analysis. The court accepted Modalmed’s well-pleaded allegations as admitted by virtue of default.
The financial enforcement mechanism — directing Third Party Providers to freeze and remit funds — is a hallmark feature of Schedule A litigation strategy. This ruling reinforces several important legal principles: default judgment as a legitimate enforcement tool, third-party payment processor liability, and the viability of Schedule A complaints.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis in Wearable Wellness
This case highlights critical IP risks in the rapidly growing wearable wellness market. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all patents related to headwear eye massagers
- See which companies are most active in wearable wellness patents
- Understand Schedule A litigation trends
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Headwear eye massager designs
2 Patents Asserted
In this specific case
IP Enforcement Trend
Schedule A Litigation
✅ Key Takeaways
Default judgment in Schedule A patent cases requires carefully pleaded infringement allegations and proper service — the evidentiary record must support asset-freeze remedies.
Explore Schedule A precedents →Third-party payment processor orders are a critical component of damages collection strategy in e-commerce patent enforcement.
Learn about asset recovery →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 10,684,483 B2 and U.S. Patent No. 11,372,252 B2, both directed to headwear technology applicable to eye massager devices.
Defendants failed to appear or respond to the complaint, resulting in a default judgment that included mandatory financial account freezes and fund transfers to Modalmed.
It reinforces Schedule A litigation as an effective enforcement strategy in the consumer wellness tech sector and signals elevated IP risk for marketplace sellers of eye massager products.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — Case 1:24-cv-11780
- U.S. Patent No. 10,684,483 B2
- U.S. Patent No. 11,372,252 B2
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Default Judgment
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for E-commerce Enforcement
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.