Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
PG Ltd. v. Schedule A Defendants — Hair Clipper Guide Patent | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:25-cv-03707
FiledApr 2025
ClosedAug 2025
Patent Litigation

PG Ltd. v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in Hair Clipper Guide IP Case

PG Ltd. secured a default judgment against a class of anonymous online marketplace sellers accused of selling counterfeit versions of its hair clipper guide product. The Illinois Northern District Court granted a permanent injunction and $10,000 in statutory damages per defaulting defendant, with funds frozen across PayPal, Stripe, Payoneer, and LianLian accounts.

Resolution time
120days
Resolved in 120 days — notably fast for a multi-defendant Schedule A infringement case
Patents asserted
1
USD0982233S — design patent for guide for hair clippers
Outcome
Default Judgment
Plaintiff wins on default — defendants failed to appear or respond
Cost ruling
$10,000/defendant
$10,000 statutory damages per defaulting defendant under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2)
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Schedule A counterfeit action yields swift default judgment for PG Ltd.

Filed on 7 April 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Manish S. Shah, this case pits PG Ltd. against an undisclosed number of online sellers identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A.’ The action centres on USD0982233S, a design patent covering a guide for hair clippers, alongside associated copyrighted works. Defendants allegedly operated Internet storefronts — including on eBay and Walmart.com — selling counterfeit and infringing versions of PG Ltd.’s product.

The case closed on 5 August 2025 via default judgment after defendants failed to appear. Judge Shah granted PG Ltd.’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in full: defendants are permanently enjoined from manufacturing, marketing, or selling infringing products, and statutory damages of $10,000 per defendant were awarded for willful copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2). Third-party payment processors — including PayPal, Stripe, Payoneer, and LianLian — were ordered to freeze and release defendant funds within seven to fourteen calendar days.

At 120 days from filing to closure, this case resolved markedly faster than the median Schedule A infringement action, consistent with the default trajectory when anonymous defendants decline to contest. The speed and structure of the outcome — frozen payment accounts, platform-level injunctions, and a $127,000 surety bond returned to plaintiff’s counsel — suggests PG Ltd. and Flener IP & Business Law executed a well-prepared enforcement playbook. The total damages aggregate remains unknown from the public record, as the per-defendant figure applies individually and the Schedule A defendant count is sealed.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:25-cv-03707
PlaintiffPG Ltd.,
CourtIllinois Northern
JudgeManish S. Shah
FiledApril 7, 2025
ClosedAugust 5, 2025
Duration120 days
OutcomeDefault Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDefault Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Illinois Northern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Default Judgment in 120 days

Resolved in 120 days — notably fast for a multi-defendant Schedule A infringement case

Case timeline: Complaint filed APR 7 2025, JUN–JUL — 120 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in PG Ltd., v The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. APR 7 2025 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings AUG 5 2025 Default Judgment 120 DAYS TOTAL
Default judgment

Default judgment granted: permanent injunction and damages against all defendants

Legal mechanism

Default judgment: what it means when defendants don’t appear

A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to respond to a complaint. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and grants the requested relief. Here, Judge Shah granted PG Ltd.’s motion in full, meaning all injunctive and monetary relief was awarded without a contested merits hearing. This is the standard outcome in Schedule A cases where anonymous overseas sellers elect not to engage.

No merits contest
Plaintiff outcome

PG Ltd. secures permanent injunction and frozen funds

PG Ltd. obtained the full range of Schedule A enforcement remedies: a permanent injunction barring all infringing activity, platform-level takedown orders enforceable against eBay and Walmart.com, and mandatory fund releases from major payment processors within 14 days. The $127,000 surety bond posted at filing was returned in full. Statutory damages of $10,000 per defendant for willful infringement represent the maximum ceiling under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) for this damages category.

Full relief granted
Defendant outcome

Defaulting sellers face asset freezes and permanent market bar

Each defaulting defendant faces a $10,000 damages award, permanent injunction, and frozen financial accounts across LianLian, PayPal, Payoneer, and Stripe. Critically, the order grants PG Ltd. ongoing authority to pursue supplemental proceedings under FRCP 69 to collect any unpaid amounts, and to serve additional asset discovery by email. Defendants who chose not to appear are bound by all terms and have no automatic right to reopen the default.

Assets frozen; appeal path narrow
Commercial implications

Marketplace enforcement: a warning to counterfeit design product sellers

This judgment reinforces the effectiveness of the Schedule A litigation model for consumer product design patents and copyrights. Payment processor injunctions targeting LianLian — a platform frequently used by China-based marketplace sellers — signal that plaintiffs are increasingly targeting the financial infrastructure behind counterfeiting networks. For legitimate competitors in the hair clipper accessories space, the case confirms PG Ltd.’s active enforcement posture around USD0982233S.

Enforcement signal to marketplace sellers
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:25-cv-03707 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffPG Ltd.,CompanyIP rights holder — holder of USD0982233S design patent for hair clipper guideSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule AIndividualAnonymous online marketplace sellers operating counterfeit storefronts on eBay and Walmart.comSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJames Edward JudgeAttorneyCounsel for PG Ltd.,Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselYing ChenAttorneyCounsel for PG Ltd.,Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselZareefa Burki FlenerAttorneyCounsel for PG Ltd.,Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmFlener IP & Business LawLaw FirmRepresenting PG Ltd.,Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Manish S. ShahJudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Accordingly, this Court orders that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED as follows, that Defaulting Defendants are deemed in default, and that this Default Judgment is entered against Defaulting Defendants. This Court further orders that: Defaulting Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them be permanently enjoined and restrained from: a. using the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property or any reproductions, infringing copies, or colorable imitations in any manner in connection with the manufacturing, distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product that is not a genuine Plaintiff product or not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property; b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a genuine Plaintiff product or any other product produced by Plaintiff, that is not Plaintiff’s or not produced under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff and approved by Plaintiff for sale under the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property; c. reproducing, publicly displaying, distributing, or otherwise infringing Plaintiff’s copyrights in Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property; d. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defaulting Defendants’ products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff; and e. manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring, or otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, products or inventory not manufactured by or for Plaintiff, nor authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered for sale, and/or which may bear any of Plaintiff’s trademarks or any reproductions, counterfeit copies or colorable imitations thereof. 2. Defaulting Defendants and any Third-Party with actual notice of this Order who is providing services for any of the Defaulting Defendants, or in connection with any of the Defaulting Defendants’ Online Marketplaces, including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as eBay Inc. (eBay) and Walmart.com Inc. (“Walmart) (“Third-Party Providers”); shall within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order cease: a. using, linking to, transferring, selling, or exercising control over the Online Marketplace Accounts, or any other online marketplace account, to sell counterfeit and infringing goods using the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property; and b. operating and/or hosting websites that are involved with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product bearing the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property, or any reproductions, counterfeit copies or colorable imitations thereof that is not a genuine Plaintiff product or not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property. 3. Upon Plaintiff’s request, those with notice of this Order, including the Third-Party Providers as defined in Paragraph 2 shall within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of such notice, disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with Defaulting Defendants in connection with the sale of counterfeit and infringing goods using Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages from each of the Defaulting Defendants in the amount of $10,000.00 for willful use of counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works on products sold through at least the Defendant Internet Stores. This award shall apply to each distinct Defaulting Defendant only once, even if they are listed under multiple different aliases in the Complaint and Schedule A. 5. Any Third-Party Providers holding funds for Defaulting Defendants, as defined in Paragraph 4, as well as payment processors including LianLian Global, LL Pay U.S., LLC, Lianlian Yintong Electronic Payment Co. Ltd. (“LianLian”), PayPal Holdings, Inc. (“PayPal”), Payoneer Global Inc. (“Payoneer”), and Stripe Inc. (“Stripe”) (collectively, “Payment Processors”), shall, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order, permanently restrain and enjoin any accounts connected to Defaulting Defendants or the Defendant Internet Stores from transferring or disposing of any funds (up to the statutory damages awarded in Paragraph 4 above) or other of Defaulting Defendants’ assets. 6. All monies (up to the amount of the statutory damages awarded in Paragraph 4 above) currently restrained in Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts, including monies held by Third-Party Providers and Payment Processors as defined in Paragraph 2 and 5, are hereby released to Plaintiff as partial payment of the above-identified damages, and Third-Party Providers and Payment Processors are ordered to release to Plaintiff the amounts from Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of this Order.Until Plaintiff has recovered full payment of monies owed to it by any Defaulting Defendant, Plaintiff shall have the ongoing authority to commence supplemental proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69. 8. In the event that Plaintiff identifies any additional online marketplace accounts or financial accounts owned by Defaulting Defendants, Plaintiff may send notice of any supplemental proceeding, including a citation to discover assets, to Defaulting Defendants by e-mail at the e-mail addresses provided for Defaulting Defendants by third parties. 9. The $127,000.00 surety bond posted by Plaintiff is hereby released to Plaintiff or its counsel, Flener IP & Business Law. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the surety bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court to Plaintiff or its counsel.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:25-cv-03707, Illinois Northern District Court

The default judgment is expansive in scope: it operates not only against named defendants but binds all persons ‘acting in active concert’ with them, and extends injunctive obligations to third-party platform and payment providers. The statutory damages figure of $10,000 per defendant reflects the willful infringement ceiling under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) rather than a negotiated or jury-assessed amount. Because no defendant appeared, there was no adversarial challenge to damages quantum or injunction breadth, meaning the order reflects PG Ltd.’s requested relief almost verbatim.

PACER case 1:25-cv-03707 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USD0982233S — Ornamental design for a guide for hair clippers

Publication No.USD0982233S
Application No.US35/513233
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design for a guide for hair clippers
Cited in actionApril 7, 2025

USD0982233S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a guide for hair clippers. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture as depicted in the patent drawings. Infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary purchaser, familiar with prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The corrected application number US35/513233 places this filing in the standard design patent prosecution track.

Hair clipper accessories represent a high-volume, low-unit-price consumer product category that is particularly susceptible to counterfeiting via online marketplaces. Design patents in this space, while narrower than utility patents, are strategically valuable precisely because they enable Schedule A enforcement actions — targeting groups of anonymous sellers — without requiring proof of functional copying. PG Ltd.’s decision to assert USD0982233S alongside copyright claims maximises both injunctive leverage and statutory damages exposure for defaulting defendants.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your product team run an FTO against USD0982233S?

Any business designing, manufacturing, or distributing hair clipper guides — or accessories with a similar ornamental profile — sold through U.S. e-commerce channels should assess freedom-to-operate against USD0982233S. The ordinary observer test for design patents can capture products that are functionally distinct but visually similar, and the Northern District of Illinois has demonstrated willingness to issue ex parte TROs and default judgments rapidly in Schedule A cases. The risk is not limited to counterfeiters: legitimate competitors with similar-looking accessories could face enforcement action.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to upload design images and map visual similarity against registered design patents including USD0982233S. Eureka can retrieve the original prosecution drawings, cited prior art, and related design family members to help counsel assess the claim boundary. For R&D teams developing new clipper guide profiles, Eureka’s design landscape view can identify white-space opportunities outside PG Ltd.’s registered visual claim.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0982233S to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar Schedule A design patent cases in the N.D. Illinois

Explore comparable Schedule A default judgment actions involving consumer product design patents and copyright infringement filed in the Northern District of Illinois.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
PG Ltd., patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern case history, PG Ltd.,’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Schedule A defaults N.D. Ill.Hair accessory design patentsLianLian payment freeze casesConsumer goods copyright actions
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the hair clipper accessories IP landscape

PG Ltd.’s swift default judgment illustrates how design patent holders are weaponising Schedule A actions to disrupt counterfeit supply chains at scale.

Schedule A default judgments move fast — 120 days is achievable

This case closed in 120 days, well below the average district court patent case. For IP holders in the consumer accessories space, this confirms that a well-prepared Schedule A complaint — with a pre-filed TRO, sealed Schedule, and payment processor injunction — can yield enforceable relief before counterfeiters can liquidate inventory or transfer funds.

Payment processor freezes are the real enforcement lever

The order targeting LianLian, PayPal, Payoneer, and Stripe within 7 days of service reflects a matured enforcement strategy. Funds frozen before defendants can transfer them abroad often exceed the face value of damages awarded. Companies monitoring counterfeit activity in consumer product categories should audit which payment rails their infringers use and name them explicitly in their complaints.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated insights on design patent enforcement strategy and Schedule A litigation risk in the N.D. Illinois consumer accessories sector.
Design claim scope riskRepeat plaintiff signalsPayment processor strategy
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

PG v Partnerships — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Monitor hair clipper design patent enforcement with PatSnap

PG Ltd.’s active enforcement of USD0982233S signals ongoing risk for sellers in the hair clipper accessories space. Use PatSnap Eureka to run an FTO analysis, track new Schedule A filings, and map the design patent landscape before launching your next product.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.