Modalmed Inc. Wins Default Judgment in Eye Massager Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Modalmed Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| Case Number | 1:24-cv-11780 |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Duration | Nov 15, 2024 – Jan 15, 2026 1 year 2 months |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win — Default Judgment & Asset Transfer |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Headwear (Eye Massagers) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Proprietary rights holder over headwear-integrated eye massager technology.
🛡️ Defendant
Network of anonymous or pseudonymous online retailers of infringing eye massager products.
Patents at Issue
This landmark case involved two U.S. patents covering headwear-integrated eye massager technology, a sector experiencing rapid consumer market growth. These utility patents protect the functional configurations of wearable eye care and massage devices.
- • US10684483B2 — Directed to optical or visual headwear technology with claims likely covering structural or functional configurations of eye massager devices.
- • US11372252B2 — A continuation or related patent in the same family, extending protection across additional claim configurations relevant to the accused products.
Designing a similar product?
Check if your eye massager design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The court entered a Final Default Judgment in favor of Modalmed Inc. against the Defaulting Defendants. The judgment included a financial asset transfer order directing third-party payment providers — such as PayPal, Stripe, or marketplace payment processors — to immediately freeze and subsequently transfer funds from defendants’ financial accounts to Modalmed or its designated counsel.
Key Legal Issues
The verdict arose from an infringement action under the identified patents. Because the defendants failed to appear or respond, the court applied the legal standard for default judgment—accepting Modalmed’s well-pleaded allegations as true and determining that the claimed infringement of US10684483B2 and US11372252B2 was established. The financial remedy mechanism—ordering third-party providers to freeze and transfer funds—reflects the court’s exercise of equitable and legal authority over payment infrastructure, a tool that has become central to Schedule A enforcement strategy.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in therapeutic headwear design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in wearable technology patents
- Understand claim construction patterns
🔍 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
Wearable eye care & therapeutic headwear design
Active Patent Family
Modalmed’s asserted patents
Design-Around Options
Available for many claims
✅ Key Takeaways
Default judgment combined with financial asset freeze orders is a powerful and increasingly standardized enforcement mechanism in Schedule A patent litigation.
Search related case law →The Northern District of Illinois remains a strategically favorable venue for multi-defendant online infringement cases.
Explore precedents →Maintaining patent families across multiple related applications strengthens coverage and enforcement flexibility.
Explore patent families →Frequently Asked Questions
Modalmed asserted US10684483B2 and US11372252B2, both covering eye massager headwear technology, in Case No. 1:24-cv-11780 before the Northern District of Illinois.
Because defendants defaulted and failed to appear, the court exercised its equitable authority to order payment processors holding defendants’ funds to freeze and transfer those amounts directly to Modalmed as satisfaction of the damages award.
It confirms that Schedule A default judgment proceedings with asset freeze mechanisms are viable and effective in the therapeutic headwear space, signaling heightened enforcement risk for online sellers of unlicensed 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 and Trademark Office — Patent US10684483B2
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent US11372252B2
- Avek IP LLC Profile
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
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.