Oakley v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Eyeglass Design Patent
Oakley, Inc. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against dozens of online marketplace sellers — operating under storefronts such as Sunshine Mall, OCYCO Eyewear Store, and numerous others — alleging infringement of its registered eyeglass design patent USD719209S. The court granted Oakley’s motion for default judgment in its entirety after defendants failed to appear, resolving the case in 176 days.
Oakley’s design patent enforcement sweep against grey-market online sellers
On 8 November 2023, Oakley, Inc. filed a design patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:23-cv-15752) against a large cohort of anonymous and named online marketplace sellers — collectively identified as partnerships and unincorporated associations on Schedule A — for alleged infringement of USD719209S, a registered ornamental design for an eyeglass frame (U.S. application no. 29/494756). Named defendants included storefronts such as Sunshine Mall, OCYCO Eyewear Store, blueeyeblingstore, Voe Outdoor Sports, and dozens of others operating primarily through e-commerce platforms.
The case closed on 2 May 2024 — 176 days after filing — when Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings granted Oakley’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in its entirety. Defendants were deemed in default, having failed to appear or contest the action. A final judgment was entered against all defaulting defendants. This outcome, by default rather than contested adjudication, means no court found infringement on the merits; rather, defendants’ failure to respond triggered the default mechanism under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The swift resolution — under six months — is consistent with the typical trajectory of Schedule A mass-defendant e-commerce enforcement actions, where defendants frequently fail to appear and default is sought as a tactical enforcement tool. What the public record does not reveal is the precise injunctive or monetary relief awarded, the identity of all defendants served, or whether any defendants subsequently moved to vacate the default. Oakley was represented by Greer Burns & Crain, Ltd., a firm specialising in IP enforcement against online infringers.
Filing to Default Judgment in 176 days
176 days — below the typical 2–3 year district court average; accelerated by mass default
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: no merits adjudication, but binding relief
A default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true but does not conduct a full merits trial. Here, Judge Cummings granted Oakley’s motion in its entirety, making the judgment final and enforceable against all named defaulting defendants — though no independent judicial finding of design patent infringement was made on the merits.
Rule 55 default — no contested meritsOakley obtains binding judgment and enforcement leverage
A default judgment in its entirety typically entitles Oakley to the relief sought in its complaint — likely including injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and potentially statutory damages under design patent law. Critically, the judgment is enforceable against all defaulting defendants, enabling Oakley to pursue platform takedowns, asset freezes, and payment processor actions. This outcome strengthens Oakley’s IP enforcement posture without requiring protracted litigation.
Full judgment granted — enforcement enabledDefaulting sellers face binding judgment and ongoing exposure
Defendants who failed to appear are now subject to a final court judgment, which may carry injunctions, monetary awards, and platform-level consequences. While a defendant may petition to vacate a default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) by showing good cause, the window for doing so is narrow and relief is rarely granted absent compelling circumstances. The public record does not indicate any defendant has challenged the default.
Final judgment — limited recourse remainsSchedule A enforcement signals sustained design IP risk for online sellers
This case is consistent with a growing wave of Schedule A design patent enforcement actions by brand owners against anonymous e-commerce sellers. For marketplace operators and third-party sellers offering eyewear products, the pattern suggests brand owners like Oakley are actively monitoring listings and pursuing swift default judgment strategies. Sellers in the eyeglass and accessories space should treat uncontested infringement risk as commercially material, not theoretical.
E-commerce design IP enforcement trendFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Oakley, Inc. | Company | Premium eyewear brand and design IP holder — holder of USD719209SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Dozens of anonymous online marketplace sellers alleged to infringe Oakley’s eyeglass designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Sunshine Mall | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | A107FUSQBWL90Z | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | blueeyeblingstore | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | IVERSION | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | kuangqianduji | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | OCYCO Eyewear Store | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others too numerous to list: wandou12, JUFANXI, XMSM, CHSDFVJSWIJOGIIGER, pengjiangquanximaoyishanghang, xingyexianlonganzhenjunyongpijuxiaoshoudian, tongwangshangmaohang-ys, Motion glasses, Zowie Store, loquatwang, Today93, xuzhoulanchiwangluokejiyouxiangongsi, Sherry Selection, AF4OBLM6YJBE8, weidianjiaju-ys, GreeTree, Elleryy, FBG-US, surprises, haorich, LVToffice, AYCJB2KU31VC1, AQO2BN0ONWAFX, dujiqushengming-ys, xxgxmj, 6687YJTD Optical Shop Store, tronger, baozou, Love Beauty Life, MLLIQUEA shoe industr, Xinyu Chaofan, foshanshinanhaiquqilanxingshangmaoyouxiangongsi, hanjiakungeg, bluecute-store, hi amy, A2URT0O8BA7PYN, A3A4LJ7JZTRIOD, Little carp, bluebeauty2020, bluecutestore, New collaboration room, Super Technology, WINDWALKER, A3RY220FWYYOH3 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Voe Outdoor Sports | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | XiQiBaiHuo | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | zhigoupanlongqu | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for Oakley, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Berel Yonathan Lakovitsky | Attorney | Counsel for Oakley, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jake Michael Christensen | Attorney | Counsel for Oakley, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin R. Gaudio | Attorney | Counsel for Oakley, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas Joseph Juettner | Attorney | Counsel for Oakley, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greer Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Oakley, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeffrey I Cummings | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order that the motion is ‘GRANTED in its entirety’ and that defendants are ‘deemed in default’ confirms that all relief sought by Oakley was awarded without contest. The phrase ‘Final Judgment’ signals this is a terminal, appealable order — not an interlocutory ruling. Because the judgment rests on default rather than a contested merits adjudication, it establishes no binding precedent on whether USD719209S is valid or infringed. However, it is fully enforceable against the named defaulting defendants.
USD719209S — ornamental eyeglass frame design patent
USD719209S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of an eyeglass frame, filed under application number 29/494756. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the non-functional, visual characteristics of a product — in this case, the specific aesthetic configuration of an Oakley eyeglass frame. Design patents have a 15-year term from grant and are assessed for infringement under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: would an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art designs, find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design.
For a brand like Oakley — whose commercial value is substantially tied to product aesthetics and design identity — design patents on eyeglass frames represent a frontline IP enforcement asset. The ability to pursue mass-defendant actions against online sellers of visually similar products demonstrates that USD719209S carries genuine commercial enforcement weight. Competitors and OEM suppliers in the eyewear sector should treat registered Oakley design patents as active litigation risks, particularly for products sold through open e-commerce platforms where brand monitoring is automated.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD719209S?
Any company developing, importing, or selling eyeglass frames — particularly for online marketplace distribution — should consider a freedom-to-operate review against USD719209S and related Oakley design registrations. The ordinary observer test for design patent infringement is highly fact-specific and visual; even products that differ functionally may infringe if the ornamental appearance is substantially similar. This case demonstrates that Oakley actively monitors and enforces its design IP against online sellers at scale.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to run structured freedom-to-operate analyses against registered design patents, including USD719209S. Eureka can surface related Oakley design filings, identify the scope of the protected ornamental elements, and flag commercially similar registered designs — helping product teams make informed go/no-go decisions before launching eyewear products in markets where Oakley enforces aggressively.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0719209S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in e-commerce eyewear
Schedule A default judgment actions for eyeglass design patents in the Northern District of Illinois follow a recognisable pattern — explore comparable enforcement cases below.
What this case signals for the eyewear and e-commerce IP landscape
Oakley’s swift default judgment illustrates how design patent holders are weaponising Schedule A mass-defendant actions against online marketplaces.
Schedule A actions are a structured enforcement playbook, not one-off suits
Brand owners like Oakley are filing coordinated, multi-defendant actions targeting anonymous online sellers simultaneously. The Northern District of Illinois is a preferred venue for these actions. For e-commerce platforms and sellers, this signals that design IP enforcement is systematic — not reactive — and that failure to respond carries immediate default judgment risk.
Design patents on product aesthetics carry real litigation firepower
USD719209S protects the ornamental appearance of Oakley’s eyeglass frame — not its function. Design patents are increasingly used in e-commerce enforcement precisely because the visual comparison test is straightforward and default judgments are readily obtained. Companies selling eyewear online should audit their product designs against registered design IP held by major brands.
Oakley v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a final default judgment in favour of Oakley, Inc. on 2 May 2024. Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings granted Oakley’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in its entirety. All named defendants were deemed in default for failure to appear, and a final judgment was entered against them.
Oakley asserted U.S. design patent USD719209S (application no. 29/494756), which protects the ornamental design of an eyeglass frame. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the non-functional visual appearance of a product and are assessed for infringement under the ordinary observer test.
A Schedule A action is a multi-defendant enforcement lawsuit where a plaintiff sues numerous anonymous or pseudonymous online sellers simultaneously, identified on an attached schedule. These actions are common in the Northern District of Illinois and are frequently used by brand owners to pursue e-commerce sellers for design patent or trademark infringement, often seeking ex parte TROs and default judgments when defendants fail to appear.
Yes, in principle. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), a party may seek relief from a final default judgment by showing good cause — such as lack of proper service, excusable neglect, or a meritorious defence. However, courts rarely grant such relief in Schedule A cases, and the public record does not indicate any defendant has moved to vacate the judgment in this case.
Oakley was represented by Greer Burns & Crain, Ltd., a Chicago-based law firm that specialises in IP enforcement against online marketplace infringers. The firm’s attorneys of record included Justin R. Gaudio, Amy Crout Ziegler, Berel Yonathan Lakovitsky, Jake Michael Christensen, and Thomas Joseph Juettner.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.