Oakley v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in 96 Days on Sunglass Design Patent
Oakley, Inc. obtained a default judgment against 20 online marketplace sellers — predominantly China-based — for infringing design patent USD847897S covering its proprietary sunglass design. Judge Blakey granted permanent injunctions and profits-based damages across all defendants within 96 days of filing, with individual awards totalling over $14,500 under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
Oakley’s fast-track takedown of counterfeit sunglass sellers on global marketplaces
Oakley, Inc. filed suit on 1 November 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois against a group of anonymous online sellers — identified only as the partnerships and unincorporated associations on Schedule A — alleging infringement of design patent USD847897S, which protects the ornamental appearance of its sunglasses. The defendants operated storefronts across major e-commerce platforms including Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, AliExpress, Temu, TikTok Shop, Wish, Walmart Marketplace, Etsy, and DHgate.
With no defendant appearing or filing a response, Judge John Robert Blakey granted Oakley’s motion for entry of default and default judgment in full on 5 February 2025 — just 96 days after filing. The court awarded profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 on a per-defendant basis, ranging from $250 to $8,041, and issued a permanent injunction barring each defendant from offering, selling, or importing the infringing product. Third-party providers including PayPal, Alibaba, Amazon Pay, Temu, and TikTok were ordered to freeze and release defendant funds within seven calendar days.
The 96-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated Schedule A litigation model routinely employed in N.D. Illinois, where Greer, Burns & Crain has developed a repeatable enforcement playbook for brand owners. The public record does not disclose the total volume of infringing units sold, the basis for the specific per-defendant profit calculations, or whether any defendants contested the proceedings informally. The $22,000 surety bond released back to Oakley suggests the TRO phase concluded without successful defendant challenge.
Filing to Default Judgment in 96 days
96 days — faster than the median Schedule A enforcement timeline in N.D. Illinois
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for Oakley and the defendants
Default judgment: liability without appearance
Where a defendant fails to appear or respond, a court may enter default judgment, treating the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as admitted. Here, all 20 defendants failed to participate, entitling Oakley to the relief sought. Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, design patent holders may elect to recover the infringer’s total profits from the infringing article — a potentially more favourable measure than lost profits or reasonable royalty.
35 U.S.C. § 289 — infringer’s profitsOakley secures permanent injunction and profits across all 20 defendants
Oakley obtained the full relief sought: a permanent injunction, profits-based damages, and court-ordered fund seizure via third-party payment processors and marketplace platforms. The final judgment is binding and enforceable. Third-party providers must disable listings and release frozen funds within seven days. The $22,000 surety bond posted for the TRO has been returned, confirming the preliminary measures were uncontested.
Permanent injunction grantedAll 20 sellers permanently enjoined with financial accounts frozen
Each named defendant is permanently barred from selling or importing the infringing product and from using affiliated entities to circumvent the order. Financial accounts linked to their seller aliases on Amazon, Alibaba, eBay, Temu, TikTok, and other platforms are subject to fund release to Oakley. Forming new entities to continue selling is expressly prohibited by the judgment. Defendants have no further right of appeal given their non-appearance.
Funds frozen and released to plaintiffDesign patent enforcement via Schedule A remains a potent brand-protection tool
This case reinforces N.D. Illinois as the preferred venue for Schedule A enforcement actions against marketplace counterfeiters. The combination of ex parte TROs, asset freezes across global payment processors, and sub-100-day default judgments creates meaningful deterrence. For brands with registered design patents, the § 289 profits remedy — applied here on a per-storefront basis — can deliver targeted financial relief without prolonged litigation, even where individual awards are modest.
N.D. Ill. Schedule A playbookFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Oakley, Inc. | Company | Global eyewear and action sports brand — holder of design patent USD847897SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | 20 anonymous online marketplace sellers, predominantly China-based, trading under Schedule A aliasesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for Oakley, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Daniel Burnham | Attorney | Counsel for Oakley, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Berel Yonathan Lakovitsky | Attorney | Counsel for Oakley, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin R. Gaudio | Attorney | Counsel for Oakley, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marcella Deshonda Slay | 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 John Robert Blakey | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment is entered in full against all 20 named defendants, each of whom failed to appear, rendering liability admitted as a matter of law. The court applied 35 U.S.C. § 289 — the design patent infringer’s profits statute — to award per-defendant damages based on reported sales figures. The permanent injunction extends beyond the named defendants to their affiliates, agents, and any new entities they may form, materially broadening enforcement reach. The court’s explicit instruction to third-party payment processors and marketplace operators to act within seven calendar days signals a coordinated, platform-level enforcement mechanism that goes beyond a standard injunction against the direct infringers.
USD847897S — Oakley ornamental sunglass design patent
USD847897S (Application No. US29/664453) is a US design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of an Oakley sunglass model. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture. The scope of protection is defined by the drawings filed during prosecution — solid lines represent the claimed design, broken lines typically indicate unclaimed environmental structure. The patent’s application number prefix (29/) confirms it was filed as a design application, following the USPTO’s dedicated design patent examination track.
For Oakley — a brand whose commercial value is substantially embedded in the visual identity of its eyewear — design patents like USD847897S are a frontline asset against the mass production of lookalike products at Asian manufacturing hubs. The § 289 profits remedy makes these patents economically viable to enforce even against low-volume sellers. Any private-label eyewear brand, OEM manufacturer, or retailer sourcing sunglass styles with similar frame geometry, lens shape, or temple design to Oakley’s protected models faces material infringement risk and should conduct clearance analysis before commercialisation.
Should you run an FTO against USD847897S?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or retailing sunglasses — particularly those sourcing from Chinese OEM suppliers who may replicate popular silhouettes — should assess whether their products clear USD847897S. The risk is not limited to direct counterfeiters: even independently developed sunglass designs may infringe if their ornamental appearance is substantially similar to the claimed design as judged by an ordinary observer. Eyewear brands, sporting goods retailers, and fashion accessories companies operating on Amazon, Alibaba, or Temu storefronts are particularly exposed given the enforcement model demonstrated in this case.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and IP teams to run structured freedom-to-operate analyses against USD847897S and the broader Oakley design patent portfolio. Eureka can map claim scope against your product drawings, identify design-around opportunities, surface related design patents in the same family, and flag prior art that may inform validity challenges. For brands active in the eyewear space, a proactive FTO analysis is significantly less costly than defending a Schedule A enforcement action in N.D. Illinois.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0847897S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois eyewear litigation
Cases involving design patent infringement actions against Schedule A marketplace defendants in the Northern District of Illinois, covering eyewear and consumer goods.
What this case signals for the eyewear and consumer goods IP landscape
Oakley’s swift default judgment illustrates how design patent holders can systematically disrupt counterfeit supply chains on global e-commerce platforms.
Design patents are uniquely powerful against online marketplace counterfeiters
Unlike utility patents, design patents cover ornamental appearance — making infringement comparisons visually straightforward and easier to establish by default. The § 289 profits remedy requires no complex damages calculation, enabling courts to award per-defendant sums rapidly. Brand owners in eyewear, apparel, and accessories should audit their design patent portfolios for enforcement gaps before products reach counterfeit marketplaces.
Third-party platform cooperation is now a standard enforcement lever in N.D. Illinois
The judgment names Amazon, Alibaba, eBay, Temu, TikTok, Wish, Walmart, Etsy, DHgate, PayPal, and Ant Financial as third-party providers subject to mandatory seven-day compliance. This cross-platform asset freeze and listing takedown capability is a structural advantage of the Schedule A model — and suggests brands should document seller alias data early to maximise fund recovery.
Oakley v Partnerships — key questions answered
Oakley asserted design patent USD847897S (Application No. US29/664453), which protects the ornamental appearance of an Oakley sunglass design. The patent was asserted against 20 online marketplace sellers under 35 U.S.C. § 289 for infringer’s profits.
Damages were awarded on a per-defendant basis under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Individual awards ranged from $250 to $8,041 per storefront, with the highest single award of $8,041 going against ‘OAK Sunglasses’. The total across all 20 defendants exceeded $14,500. Amounts reflect the defendants’ profits from sales of the infringing product.
A ‘Schedule A’ defendant refers to a group of anonymous sellers — typically operating across multiple e-commerce platforms under pseudonymous store aliases — who are identified on an exhibit filed with the complaint rather than named individually. This procedural approach is common in N.D. Illinois for brand enforcement actions against counterfeit marketplace sellers, allowing a single case to address dozens of infringers efficiently.
The court ordered named third-party providers — including Amazon, Alibaba, eBay, Temu, TikTok, Wish, Walmart, Etsy, DHgate, PayPal, and Ant Financial — to disable listings, freeze financial accounts, and release funds to Oakley within seven calendar days of receiving the order. Oakley retains ongoing authority to serve the order on processors if new accounts linked to the defendants are identified.
Section 289 of the Patent Act allows a design patent holder to recover the total profits earned by an infringer from the sale of any article incorporating the patented design, in addition to any other damages. This remedy is specific to design patents and does not require the patent holder to prove lost profits or establish a reasonable royalty — making it particularly effective in enforcement actions against low-cost marketplace counterfeiters where establishing actual harm can be difficult.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.