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 (N.D. Ill.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Duration | Oct 2025 – Mar 2026 123 days |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win — $1.7M Damages |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Dress with body-shaping function |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A direct-to-consumer apparel brand specializing in women’s shapewear and body-shaping garments, holding proprietary IP for functional design elements.
🛡️ Defendant
A group of 17 anonymous online sellers operating storefronts on e-commerce platforms like Amazon, Wish.com, and Alibaba, accused of infringing Popilush’s patent.
Patents at Issue
This case centered on U.S. Patent No. US12302954B2, covering a dress with body-shaping function. This patent protects the structural and functional design features that allow a dress garment to perform shaping, compression, or body-contouring functions, a valuable innovation in the women’s fashion and activewear sectors.
- • US12302954B2 — Dress with body-shaping function (Application No. US17/870001)
Designing a similar product?
Check if your apparel design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The court entered **final judgment in favor of Popilush LLC**, awarding a total of $1,700,000 in statutory damages against 17 defaulting defendants. This outcome also included a permanent injunction and asset forfeiture orders targeting payment processors like PayPal and Alibaba, reflecting an efficient enforcement toolkit against anonymous online sellers.
Key Legal Issues
The infringement action succeeded by default, as defendants failed to appear or contest the complaint. The court awarded $100,000 per defaulting defendant under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) (Lanham Act) and/or 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) (Copyright Act), highlighting a strategic use of layered IP enforcement. This approach offers predictable, per-defendant recovery without the complex evidentiary burden of proving actual damages, making it highly effective in default contexts.
The case also underscores the critical role of asset forfeiture orders against third-party payment processors, enabling brand owners to collect judgments even from overseas e-commerce infringers.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in functional apparel design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View patent US12302954B2 in detail
- See which companies are active in body-shaping apparel IP
- Understand legal precedents for e-commerce enforcement
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Dresses with body-shaping or compression features
Patent at Issue
US12302954B2
Strategic Design
Essential to avoid infringement
✅ Key Takeaways
Schedule A default actions in N.D. Illinois offer efficient, high-recovery enforcement pathways against anonymous e-commerce infringers.
Search related case law →Dual pleading under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) and 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) avoids evidentiary complexity of patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. US12302954B2 (Application No. US17/870001), covering a dress with body-shaping function, filed in the Northern District of Illinois as Case No. 1:25-cv-13398.
The court awarded $100,000 per defendant (17 defendants) in statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) and/or 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) following Clerk’s Entry of Default after defendants failed to appear.
This case reinforces the viability of Schedule A enforcement actions with asset forfeiture mechanisms as an effective strategy against anonymous e-commerce infringers in the apparel space.
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 Case No. 1:25-cv-13398
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) (Lanham Act)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) (Copyright Act)
- N.D. Illinois Court Records
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.