Popilush LLC Wins $1.7M Default Judgment in Shapewear Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Popilush LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| Case Number | 1:25-cv-13398 |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Duration | October 31, 2025 – March 3, 2026 123 days |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win — $1.7M Default Judgment |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Dresses with body-shaping functions |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A fashion-technology brand specializing in body-shaping and sculpting apparel. With an established IP portfolio in functional garment design, Popilush has positioned itself as an active enforcer of its intellectual property rights against counterfeit and infringing marketplace sellers.
🛡️ Defendants
A common litigation structure used against anonymous or pseudonymous e-commerce sellers — comprised 17 defaulting defendants operating across major online marketplaces like Amazon, Alibaba, and Wish.com.
The Patent at Issue
This case involved a key utility patent covering innovative body-shaping dress technology. Utility patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and protect functional inventions rather than ornamental appearance.
- • US12302954B2 — Protecting structural and design innovations in body-contouring garment construction, distinguishing Popilush’s product architecture through integrated shaping functionality.
Designing a similar product?
Check if your body-shaping garment design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The court entered a final judgment in favor of Popilush LLC, encompassing three primary enforcement mechanisms:
- Default Judgment Confirmed: The Clerk’s Entry of Default was confirmed against all 17 Defaulting Defendants, reflecting each defendant’s failure to appear or respond to the complaint.
- Statutory Damages: $1,700,000 Total: The court awarded $100,000 per defaulting defendant — totaling $1,700,000 — pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) (Lanham Act trademark statutory damages) and/or 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) (Copyright Act statutory damages). The dual statutory basis reflects a comprehensive, multi-IP-right enforcement strategy.
- Permanent Injunction Granted: Defendants are permanently enjoined from manufacturing, importing, advertising, marketing, or selling infringing products, or using Popilush’s IP.
Key Legal Issues
The asset forfeiture mechanism is particularly noteworthy. The court ordered third-party payment processors — including PayPal, Alipay, Wish.com, Alibaba, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay — to identify, freeze, and transfer defendant assets up to $100,000 per defendant within seven business days. This represents direct financial enforcement without requiring plaintiff to independently collect judgment, dramatically improving recovery prospects against otherwise unreachable international sellers.
While default judgments carry limited precedential value on substantive patent law, this case reinforces the Northern District of Illinois’s willingness to support aggressive Schedule A enforcement, including asset freeze orders reaching major global payment processors and multi-IP-right statutory damages awards without evidentiary hearings.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis for Functional Apparel
This case highlights critical IP risks in the functional apparel and shapewear market. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View related patents in the functional apparel space
- See which companies are active in shapewear IP
- Understand multi-IP enforcement strategies
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own functional apparel or shapewear product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents (e.g., US12302954B2)
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Body-shaping dress technology is actively enforced
Multi-IP-Right Enforcement
Patent + Trademark + Copyright strategy
Effective Enforcement Venue
N.D. Illinois supports rapid Schedule A judgments
✅ Key Takeaways
Schedule A litigation in N.D. Illinois offers a proven, expedited enforcement pathway for e-commerce IP infringement.
Search related case law →Multi-statutory pleading (patent + § 1117(c) + § 504(c)) maximizes per-defendant damages exposure.
Explore enforcement strategies →Payment processor asset seizure orders are an effective and increasingly standard collection mechanism against online infringers.
Analyze enforcement success rates →Frequently Asked Questions
U.S. Patent No. US12302954B2 (Application No. US17/870001), covering dress products with body-shaping functionality, was the primary patent at issue in Case No. 1:25-cv-13398.
All 17 defendants failed to appear or respond to the complaint. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this entitles plaintiff to a clerk’s entry of default, after which the court may enter default judgment with damages supported by plaintiff’s filings.
It reinforces N.D. Illinois as a favorable Schedule A venue and highlights the effectiveness of combined patent, trademark, and copyright enforcement strategies against marketplace infringers.
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
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database – US12302954B2
- PACER – N.D. Illinois Case Docket (Case No. 1:25-cv-13398)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 15 U.S.C. § 1117 – Lanham Act Damages
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 17 U.S.C. § 504 – Copyright Act Damages
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Resources
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.