Nomis LLC v. DNA Motor: Default Judgment in Rolling Knee Pad Patent Dispute
Nomis LLC secured a default judgment of $67,864.50 against DNA Motor, Inc. for infringing US7681248B2, a patent covering rolling knee pad creeper products. The Southern District of Texas also ordered destruction of all remaining infringing inventory and return of manufacturing molds — a notably swift resolution in just 65 days.
Swift default win secures damages and destruction order for Nomis
Nomis LLC filed suit against DNA Motor, Inc. on 2 July 2024 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas before Judge Lee H. Rosenthal. The complaint asserted infringement of US7681248B2, a patent covering a rolling knee pad creeper device designed for occupational or workshop kneeling mobility. The accused products included DNA Motor’s ‘Rolling Knee Pads Roller Kneeling Dolly Creepers with Casters,’ ‘Knee Creeper Pads,’ and ‘Rolling Knee Pad With Wheels, Cushion Kneeling Dolly Kreeper with Tool Tray.’
DNA Motor, Inc. failed to appear or file any response, and the court entered default judgment on 5 September 2024 in favour of Nomis. The judgment awarded $67,864.50 in damages. Critically, the court also ordered DNA Motor to destroy all remaining unsold infringing units and to return to Nomis any molds used to manufacture those products — a remedy that goes beyond financial compensation and disrupts the defendant’s capacity to resume production.
The 65-day resolution is notably compressed for patent litigation, reflecting the absence of any contested proceedings. The outcome is consistent with a scenario where a smaller distributor lacked resources or counsel to mount a defence. The public record does not disclose how damages were calculated — whether based on lost profits, a reasonable royalty, or statutory damages — nor whether Nomis has pursued or intends to pursue similar actions against other distributors of competing rolling knee pad products.
Filing to Default Judgment in 65 days
65 days — faster than the median district court patent case, resolved at default without trial
Default judgment entered: what the court’s order means for both parties
Default judgment: liability without contest
When a defendant fails to appear or respond, the court may enter default judgment treating the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as admitted. Here, DNA Motor’s non-appearance meant the court accepted Nomis’s infringement claims without adversarial scrutiny, resulting in a judgment that includes both a monetary award and affirmative injunctive-style relief compelling destruction of inventory and return of molds.
No merits contestNomis wins damages and supply-chain disruption
Nomis secured $67,864.50 in damages alongside a court order requiring DNA Motor to destroy unsold infringing stock and return manufacturing molds. The mold-return remedy is particularly valuable: it eliminates the tooling infrastructure that would enable resumption of production, providing a degree of protection beyond what a financial award alone achieves. Enforcement of the monetary judgment against a non-appearing defendant may, however, require further collection proceedings.
Damages + destruction orderDNA Motor faces judgment debt and forced inventory destruction
By failing to appear, DNA Motor forfeited any opportunity to challenge validity, claim scope, or the damages quantum. The company now faces a $67,864.50 judgment debt, a mandatory obligation to destroy unsold inventory, and a requirement to return molds to Nomis. Non-compliance with the destruction and mold-return order would expose DNA Motor to contempt proceedings. The default also bars re-litigation of the same infringement allegations under res judicata principles.
Judgment debt + contempt riskA warning shot for rolling knee pad distributors
This outcome suggests Nomis is actively enforcing US7681248B2 against competing products in the rolling knee pad and creeper segment. Other distributors or importers of similar kneeling mobility devices — particularly those sourcing generic creeper-with-casters products — should treat this default judgment as a signal that Nomis is willing to litigate. The mold-return remedy also signals Nomis’s intent to control the manufacturing supply chain, not just collect royalties.
Enforcement signal for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Nomis LLC | Company | Occupational tools IP holder — owner of US7681248B2 covering rolling knee pad creepersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | DNA Motor, Inc. | Company | DNA Motor, Inc. — distributor of rolling knee pad and creeper products, failed to appearSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jessica Hutson-polakowski | Attorney | Counsel for Nomis LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Reinhart, Boerner & Van Deuren SC | Law Firm | Representing Nomis LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lee H Rosenthal | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s verdict grants Nomis’s motion for default judgment in full, treating the well-pleaded infringement allegations as admitted by virtue of DNA Motor’s non-appearance. The award of $67,864.50 reflects the damages figure supported by Nomis’s motion and supporting documents — the public record does not detail the calculation methodology. Notably, the order extends beyond monetary relief: the destruction and mold-return provisions indicate the court accepted Nomis’s framing of ongoing infringement risk as warranting supply-chain-level remediation, not merely retrospective compensation.
US7681248B2 — Rolling Knee Pad Creeper with Casters
US7681248B2, filed under application number US11/269364, protects a rolling knee pad creeper — a wheeled kneeling platform with casters designed to enable mobility during floor-level occupational tasks such as automotive work, flooring installation, or maintenance. The patent covers the structural and functional elements that distinguish a purpose-built rolling knee creeper from generic kneeling pads, likely including the caster assembly, cushioning system, and platform geometry. The accused products — including variants marketed with tool trays — fall squarely within the product category Nomis sought to protect.
In the broader tools and occupational equipment market, a granted utility patent on a creeper-style kneeling device creates meaningful barriers for importers and private-label distributors sourcing similar products, particularly from overseas manufacturers. Because DNA Motor did not contest validity or claim scope, US7681248B2 has never faced adversarial scrutiny in court — meaning its presumption of validity remains intact and its commercial deterrent effect is strong. Competitors in the rolling knee pad segment should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk, particularly given Nomis’s demonstrated willingness to litigate to default judgment.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7681248B2?
Any company sourcing, importing, distributing, or manufacturing rolling knee pad creepers, kneeling dollies, or wheeled floor-level mobility devices should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US7681248B2. This case confirms that Nomis actively monitors and enforces the patent against commercial distributors. The product category — affordable creeper-style kneeling devices often sold through e-commerce channels — is particularly exposed, as many distributors source similar SKUs from shared manufacturers without reviewing IP encumbrances.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US7681248B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that could support a validity challenge if needed, and flag related patents in Nomis’s portfolio that may present additional risk. For product teams considering entry into the rolling knee pad market, running a targeted FTO before commercialisation is materially cheaper than facing a default judgment plus a mold-return order after the fact.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7681248B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in tools and occupational equipment
Explore comparable infringement actions involving utility patents on tools and occupational equipment products litigated in Texas district courts.
What this case signals for the tools and occupational equipment IP landscape
A swift default judgment with a mold-return remedy suggests a deliberate enforcement strategy, not a one-off dispute.
Default judgments can include injunctive-style relief beyond damages
Courts routinely grant mold return and inventory destruction as part of default judgments in product IP cases. Distributors and importers of generic tool and equipment products should not assume that non-appearance limits exposure to financial damages only — structural remedies targeting production capacity are available and are being used.
65-day resolution compresses normal patent litigation timelines significantly
The case closed in 65 days — well under the typical 2–3 year timeline for contested patent matters in Texas district courts. This reflects the procedural default pathway, not accelerated merits review. Parties receiving infringement complaints in the Southern District of Texas should treat response deadlines as business-critical; non-response leads to uncontested judgment.
Nomis v DNA — key questions answered
The Southern District of Texas entered default judgment in favour of Nomis LLC on 5 September 2024. DNA Motor, Inc. failed to appear or respond. The court awarded Nomis $67,864.50 in damages and ordered DNA Motor to destroy all remaining unsold infringing units and return manufacturing molds to Nomis.
Nomis LLC asserted US7681248B2, filed under application number US11/269364. The patent covers a rolling knee pad creeper device with casters — a wheeled kneeling mobility platform used in occupational or workshop settings. The accused products included DNA Motor’s rolling knee pad creeper and kneeling dolly product lines.
The court’s order requiring DNA Motor to return manufacturing molds to Nomis goes beyond standard monetary relief. This type of remedy is available in default judgment proceedings where the plaintiff demonstrates ongoing infringement risk. Returning molds eliminates the tooling infrastructure needed to resume production of the infringing products, providing Nomis with supply-chain-level protection in addition to the $67,864.50 damages award.
The case resolved in 65 days, filed on 2 July 2024 and closed on 5 September 2024. This compressed timeline reflects the default judgment pathway — because DNA Motor did not appear or respond, there were no contested proceedings, discovery, or trial. Standard contested patent litigation in Texas district courts typically takes two to three years.
The default judgment binds DNA Motor under res judicata, preventing it from relitigating these specific infringement allegations. However, US7681248B2 was never subjected to adversarial validity scrutiny — DNA Motor did not challenge the patent’s claims. Third parties remain free to challenge US7681248B2 validity through inter partes review at the USPTO or in separate litigation, as the default judgment creates no binding precedent on claim scope or validity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.