Rinne Corp Wins Default Judgment in Mouse Trap Design Patent Case

📄 View Full Report 📥 Export PDF 🔗 Share ⭐ Save

In a swift enforcement action resolved in under five months, Rinne Corp secured a comprehensive default judgment against dozens of anonymous online sellers for willful infringement of its design patent covering a slide bucket lid mouse trap. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Chief Judge Manish S. Shah, entered judgment in Case No. 1:25-cv-11827 on February 24, 2026, granting permanent injunctive relief, $25,000 in statutory damages per defaulting defendant, and immediate asset restraint orders targeting major e-commerce platforms including Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart.

The case exemplifies the increasingly prevalent “Schedule A” litigation strategy — a mass-enforcement mechanism targeting anonymous offshore counterfeiters through U.S. federal courts. For patent attorneys managing brand protection portfolios, IP professionals monitoring e-commerce enforcement trends, and R&D teams developing consumer products, this outcome reinforces both the power and precision of design patent enforcement in the digital marketplace.

Primary keyword focus: Design patent infringement, slide bucket lid mouse trap patent litigation.

📋 Case Summary

Case NameRinne Corp v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A
Case Number1:25-cv-11827 (N.D. Ill.)
CourtU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
DurationSept 2025 – Feb 2026 148 days
OutcomePlaintiff Win — Default Judgment ($25K/defendant)
Patents at Issue
Accused ProductsCounterfeit or imitative slide bucket lid mouse traps

Case Overview

The Parties

⚖️ Plaintiff

Registered owner of design patent USD1039648S, covering the ornamental design of a slide bucket lid mouse trap.

🛡️ Defendants

Anonymous Online Sellers

Identified collectively as “The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A,” these represent a class of anonymous online sellers operating storefronts on major e-commerce platforms.

The Patent at Issue

This case involved U.S. Design Patent USD1039648S (application number US29/782229), covering the ornamental design of a slide bucket lid mouse trap. Design patents protect the *visual characteristics* of a product, not its functional utility, making any product with a substantially similar appearance potentially infringing under the “ordinary observer” test established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

  • US D1,039,648S — Ornamental design of a slide bucket lid mouse trap

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Filed in the Northern District of Illinois — a preferred venue for Schedule A IP enforcement actions due to its procedural familiarity with such cases — the complaint was lodged on September 29, 2025. The Northern District of Illinois has developed a well-established framework for handling Schedule A litigation, enabling relatively expedient TRO, preliminary injunction, and default judgment proceedings.

The 148-day resolution from filing to closed judgment reflects a textbook Schedule A trajectory: defendants, typically anonymous foreign sellers, do not appear or respond, triggering default proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. Chief Judge Manish S. Shah, an experienced federal jurist in the Northern District, presided over the matter.

The absence of defendant legal representation — common in Schedule A cases — meant no contested claim construction, no invalidity challenges, and no discovery disputes, allowing Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment to proceed on an uncontested record.

🔍

Developing a new consumer product?

Ensure your design doesn’t infringe existing design patents before launch.

Run FTO Check →

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

On February 24, 2026, Chief Judge Shah granted Rinne Corp’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in full. The court’s order included three categories of relief:

  1. Permanent Injunction against all defaulting defendants
  2. Statutory Damages of $25,000 per defaulting defendant
  3. Asset Restraint and Transfer Orders directed at third-party payment processors and marketplace platforms

Damages and Injunctive Relief

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) (Lanham Act willful counterfeiting) and 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) (Copyright Act willful infringement), the court awarded $25,000 in statutory damages per defaulting defendant for willful use of counterfeit trademarks and copyrights. Critically, the order specifies this award applies once per defendant, even where a defendant operated under multiple aliases — a measured approach to preventing disproportionate stacking while still reflecting the willful nature of the infringement.

The permanent injunction is notably broad in scope, restraining defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from using Rinne Corp’s intellectual property in connection with any unauthorized product, passing off counterfeit products, or manufacturing/distributing unauthorized products. Significantly, the injunction extends to named third-party e-commerce and payment platforms, including Amazon, eBay, Temu, Walmart, Shein, Alibaba/AliExpress, PayPal, Stripe, Payoneer, and LianLian — each required to disable infringing listings and freeze associated financial accounts within seven calendar days of receiving the order.

Verdict Cause Analysis & Legal Significance

The case was brought as an infringement action grounded in design patent, trademark, and copyright claims. Because defendants defaulted, the court accepted Plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as admitted. The willfulness finding — critical to obtaining enhanced statutory damages — was supported by the defendants’ conduct: operating commercial storefronts selling products that replicated Rinne Corp’s protected intellectual property without authorization.

Under the design patent framework, infringement is assessed through the eyes of an “ordinary observer” comparing the patented design with the accused product in the context of prior art. While no contested infringement analysis was required here due to default, the complaint’s allegations of substantial similarity formed the factual predicate for the court’s award.

This case reinforces several important principles for design patent and Schedule A practitioners:

  • Default judgment remains an effective enforcement tool when defendants fail to appear, enabling plaintiffs to obtain permanent injunctions and statutory damages without contested litigation.
  • Third-party platform orders directing marketplaces and payment processors to freeze assets and disable listings are now routine in Northern District of Illinois Schedule A cases, providing tangible financial recovery mechanisms.
  • Willfulness can be established through default where the pleadings adequately allege knowing, unauthorized use of protected IP.
⚠️

Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis

This case highlights critical IP risks in consumer product design. Choose your next step:

📋 Understand This Case’s Impact

Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.

  • View all related patents in this consumer product space
  • See which companies are most active in design patents
  • Understand competitive landscape and claim trends
📊 View Patent Landscape
⚠️
High Risk Area

Distinctive consumer product designs

📋
1 Design Patent

At issue in this specific case

Strategic Design-Arounds

Minimize infringement risks effectively

✅ Key Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys & Litigators

Schedule A design patent cases in the N.D. Illinois continue to yield swift default judgments with comprehensive third-party platform injunctions.

Search related case law →

Willfulness findings at default support statutory damages up to $25,000 per defendant under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) and 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).

Explore damages precedents →

Combining design patent, trademark, and copyright claims in a single complaint strengthens damages frameworks.

Review complaint templates →

Asset freeze orders against major platforms (Amazon, PayPal, Stripe) are now reliably granted.

Analyze platform compliance →
🔒
Unlock Strategic IP Insights
Get actionable design patent strategy steps for product teams, including FTO timing guidance and competitive intelligence best practices.
FTO Best Practices Competitive Monitoring Design Patent Portfolio Strategy
Explore Full Analysis in PatSnap Eureka

Frequently Asked Questions

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.

PatSnap IP Intelligence Team

Patent Research & Competitive Intelligence · PatSnap

This analysis was produced by the PatSnap IP Intelligence Team — a group of patent analysts, IP strategists, and data scientists who work daily with PatSnap’s global patent database of over 2 billion structured data points across patents, litigation records, scientific literature, and regulatory filings.

The team specialises in tracking landmark litigation outcomes, translating complex court rulings into actionable IP strategy, and identifying the competitive intelligence implications for R&D and legal teams. All case analysis is grounded in primary sources: official court records, USPTO filings, and Federal Circuit opinions.

📊 2B+ Patent Data Points 🌍 120+ Countries Covered 🏢 18,000+ Customers Worldwide ⚖️ Global Litigation Database 🔍 Primary Source Verified
⚖️ Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis presented reflects publicly available case information and general legal principles. For specific advice regarding patent litigation, FTO analysis, or IP strategy, please consult a qualified patent attorney.