Safe&Safety Inc. Wins $60K Per Defendant in Secure Storage Patent Case

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

U.S. Patent No. 11,112,212 (Application No. US16/054174) protects **secure storage systems and methods** — a technology domain encompassing physical and electromechanical security solutions. The ‘212 Patent represents a granted utility patent with defined claims directed at innovations in how secure storage is designed, operated, or accessed.

The Accused Products

Defendants were alleged to have sold and offered for sale infringing **secure storage system products** through online marketplace storefronts — targeting U.S. consumers directly via platforms including Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart.

Legal Representation

Plaintiffs were represented by attorneys Christina Joanne Blackford Lesko, Maia H. Harris, Shaoyi Che, and Zheng Gong, from law firms Shinyrise, PLLC, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, and YoungZeal LLP — a multi-firm coalition reflecting the complexity and scale of Schedule A enforcement campaigns.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Filed in the Northern District of Illinois — a preferred venue for Schedule A patent litigation due to its established procedural familiarity with multi-defendant e-commerce cases — the case proceeded under Chief Judge John F. Kness.

The 652-day duration from filing to judgment reflects typical Schedule A case timelines, which often involve early ex parte motions for temporary restraining orders, asset freezes, and coordinated service across international defendants. The posting of a $10,000 surety bond on June 26, 2024, suggests an early-stage TRO or preliminary injunction proceeding was part of the plaintiffs’ initial enforcement strategy — a common procedural tool used to freeze defendant assets and prevent dissipation before judgment.

Defendants, consistent with Schedule A litigation patterns, failed to appear or mount a defense, resulting in the default judgment outcome.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

Chief Judge John F. Kness entered default judgment in favor of Safe&Safety Inc. and Shenzhen ZhengMi Technology Co., Ltd. against all non-dismissed defaulting defendants. The court’s order (Document #120) established:

• • Liability: All defaulting defendants infringed U.S. Patent No. 11,112,212
• • Base Damages: $20,000 per defaulting defendant (reasonable royalty basis under 35 U.S.C. § 284)
• • Treble Damages: Applied due to willfulness finding, tripling the award to $60,000 per defaulting defendant
• • Permanent Injunction: Comprehensive prohibition on future infringing activity
• • Asset Recovery: Immediate release of frozen marketplace funds toward damages satisfaction

Willfulness Finding and Treble Damages

The court’s finding of willful infringement is the most consequential legal determination in this ruling. Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, willful infringement empowers courts to award up to three times actual damages. Here, the court applied the full treble multiplier, elevating the per-defendant award from $20,000 to $60,000.

In the Schedule A context, willfulness is often established through evidence that defendants continued selling infringing products after receiving notice — whether through cease-and-desist communications, platform notifications, or the filing of the complaint itself. The defendants’ failure to appear or contest the claims further supported the willfulness determination.

The Permanent Injunction

The injunction issued in this case is notably broad in scope, prohibiting defendants from:

• • Making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing any products infringing the ‘212 Patent
• • Passing off infringing products as genuine plaintiff products
• • Any conduct calculated to cause consumer confusion regarding product origin or authorization

Critically, the court extended injunctive obligations to third-party platform providers — including Amazon, eBay, Temu (WhaleCo, Inc.), Walmart, PayPal, and Payoneer — requiring them to cease hosting infringing storefronts and permanently restrain and freeze defendant financial accounts within seven calendar days of order receipt.

Asset Freeze and Fund Recovery Mechanism

The court ordered third-party providers to release frozen funds directly to plaintiffs within 14 calendar days, with plaintiffs retaining ongoing authority to pursue supplemental proceedings under Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure until full satisfaction of judgment. This mechanism — increasingly standard in Schedule A cases — enables IP holders to recover damages from marketplace-held seller funds even when defendants are otherwise unreachable.

Strategic Takeaways

The strategic implications of this case are significant:

For Patent Holders:

Schedule A litigation in the Northern District of Illinois remains an effective enforcement vehicle for e-commerce infringement. Pairing utility patents with early TRO motions and asset freezes maximizes recovery prospects against non-appearing defendants. The willfulness finding underscores the importance of documented pre-suit notice.

For Accused Infringers:

Failure to appear in Schedule A cases guarantees adverse default judgments with treble damages exposure. Sellers operating on Amazon, eBay, Temu, or Walmart should conduct freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis before listing products in technology categories with active patent portfolios.

For R&D Teams:

Secure storage systems represent an actively litigated patent space. Product development teams should commission FTO studies referencing patents like U.S. 11,112,212 before commercializing competing designs.