Shanghai Xinqi v. Schedule A: Default Judgment for Mason Jar Sealer Patent Infringement
Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. sued anonymous e-commerce sellers across Amazon, Walmart, Temu, TikTok, and Shein for infringing US11981555B2, a multifunctional mason jar sealing device patent. The Illinois Northern District Court entered default judgment after no defendant appeared, awarding $40,000 per defaulting defendant — comprising trebled patent damages and statutory copyright damages — in a case resolved in 286 days.
E-commerce sweep nets default judgment for mason jar sealer IP
On January 9, 2025, Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a large class of unnamed online sellers — identified only as individuals, corporations, and entities listed on Schedule A — alleging willful infringement of US11981555B2, entitled ‘Multifunctional Mason Jar Sealing Device,’ and copyright registration VA 2-415-912 covering Xinqi’s Electric Mason Jar Sealer Instruction Manual. The defendants operated storefronts across Amazon, Walmart, Temu, TikTok, and Shein, targeting U.S. and Illinois consumers.
After the court entered a preliminary injunction, Xinqi completed e-mail service on all Schedule A defendants. None appeared, answered, or responded, causing the court to deem the complaint’s allegations admitted. On October 22, 2025, Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings granted default judgment, finding willful patent and copyright infringement. Each defaulting defendant was ordered to pay $10,000 in reasonable royalty damages, trebled to $30,000 under 35 U.S.C. § 284, plus $10,000 in statutory copyright damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), for a total of $40,000 per defendant. Third-party platforms and payment processors were directed to freeze and release restrained funds within 14 days.
The 286-day resolution is consistent with well-executed Schedule A enforcement timelines where no defendant contests liability. The absence of any defense suggests defendants likely abandoned their storefronts once accounts were frozen, a pattern common in cross-border e-commerce IP actions. The public record does not disclose the total number of Schedule A defendants, so aggregate damages remain unknown. The permanent injunction and ongoing authority under FRCP 69 supplemental proceedings give Xinqi a continuing enforcement mechanism if new infringing accounts emerge.
Filing to Default Judgment in 286 days
286 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the median Schedule A e-commerce enforcement action
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: allegations admitted, willfulness found without trial
When defendants fail to appear or answer, a court may enter default judgment under FRCP 55. All well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are deemed admitted. Here, the court found willful patent infringement and copyright infringement on that basis alone. Willfulness is significant because it triggered trebling of patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, substantially increasing the per-defendant award without requiring any evidentiary hearing on intent.
FRCP 55 / 35 U.S.C. § 284Xinqi secures $40,000 per defendant plus permanent injunction
Shanghai Xinqi obtained a permanent injunction, trebled patent damages of $30,000, and $10,000 in statutory copyright damages per defendant. Critically, frozen marketplace funds are immediately released as partial payment, and FRCP 69 supplemental proceedings remain available to pursue any uncollected balance. The judgment also covers future infringing accounts discovered post-judgment, giving Xinqi an enduring enforcement posture across major e-commerce platforms.
Permanent injunction + asset freezeDefaulting sellers face frozen accounts and permanent marketplace bans
Defaulting defendants are permanently enjoined from selling any infringing products on any platform and face $40,000 per-entity liability. Third-party platforms — including Amazon, Walmart, Temu, TikTok, and Shein — are ordered to disable accounts and release restrained funds within seven to fourteen days of the order. Defendants who did not appear have lost all ability to contest liability, damages quantum, or willfulness findings, making appeal practically unavailable without first filing a motion to vacate the default.
Permanent injunction + $40K liabilityMulti-platform enforcement signals rising risk for copycat mason jar sellers
This judgment demonstrates that a single Schedule A action can simultaneously reach sellers across five major e-commerce platforms. The combined patent-plus-copyright enforcement strategy maximises per-defendant exposure without trial, while the platform cooperation mechanism (freeze within 7 days) creates immediate commercial disruption. Sellers in the kitchen appliance and food preservation accessory space operating under multiple aliases should treat this case as a benchmark for Xinqi’s willingness to pursue aggressive IP enforcement across global marketplaces.
E-commerce IP enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer electronics manufacturer — holder of US11981555B2 for mason jar sealing deviceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A | Company | Anonymous e-commerce sellers operating storefronts on Amazon, Walmart, Temu, TikTok, and SheinSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Adam Campbell | Attorney | Counsel for Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Briana Hammons | Attorney | Counsel for Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward L. Bishop | Attorney | Counsel for Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas S. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sameeul Haque | Attorney | Counsel for Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeffrey I Cummings | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment finds willful infringement on both patent and copyright counts without any evidentiary contest, as no defendant appeared. The court’s personal jurisdiction analysis — grounded in screenshot evidence of Illinois-targeted storefronts and shipping availability — follows the standard N.D. Illinois Schedule A framework. The trebling of damages under § 284 based solely on admitted willfulness (via default) suggests the court treated the complaint’s willfulness pleading as sufficient once uncontroverted, consistent with the majority approach in this district. The permanent injunction and platform-directed asset release orders are standard in default judgments of this type, though aggregate damages depend on the undisclosed number of Schedule A defendants.
US11981555B2 — Multifunctional Mason Jar Sealing Device
US11981555B2, filed under application number US17/944828, protects a multifunctional mason jar sealing device — an electrically operated product in the food preservation and kitchen appliance category. The patent’s designation as a granted utility patent (B2) confirms it has survived examination on the merits. The invention covers the functional and structural aspects of an electric jar sealer, a product category that has seen rapid growth on consumer e-commerce platforms. Xinqi’s enforcement via claim charts mapped directly to accused products indicates the claims are drafted with sufficient specificity to read on commercially available infringing goods.
In the competitive kitchen gadget and food preservation accessory market, a granted utility patent covering an electric mason jar sealer represents a meaningful barrier to copycat sellers — particularly those operating under anonymous marketplace aliases. The willful infringement finding (by default) and the court’s readiness to issue a permanent injunction signal that Xinqi is actively policing this IP. For competitors and private-label sellers in the mason jar sealer or vacuum food preservation space, the existence of US11981555B2 in active enforcement creates material FTO risk. Sellers sourcing products from Chinese manufacturers should specifically verify whether their product design falls within or outside the claims of this patent.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11981555B2?
Any company developing, importing, or selling electric mason jar sealers, vacuum food storage devices, or functionally similar jar sealing accessories for the U.S. market should treat US11981555B2 as an active enforcement risk. This case confirms Xinqi is actively monitoring e-commerce platforms and willing to pursue default judgment against infringing sellers. The combination of a utility patent and a copyright registration makes the dual-IP enforcement profile particularly aggressive — a design-around or clearance opinion covering only the patent may leave copyright exposure unaddressed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claims of US11981555B2, surface related family members, and identify prior art that may support a design-around strategy or validity challenge. Eureka can also flag other Xinqi patents and pending applications in the mason jar sealer or food preservation device space, giving your product and IP teams a complete picture of the enforcement landscape before launch or importation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11981555B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving Schedule A e-commerce defendants, utility patent infringement, and default judgment in the Northern District of Illinois — kitchen and consumer device sector.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Multifunctional mason jar sealing device-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedShanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.’s broader IP enforcement history
Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the kitchen device e-commerce IP landscape
Xinqi’s default judgment strategy combines patent, copyright, and multi-platform asset freezes into a repeatable enforcement playbook for consumer product IP holders.
Dual IP assertion amplifies per-defendant exposure without extra litigation cost
By asserting both a utility patent and a copyright registration in a single Schedule A complaint, Xinqi stacked $30,000 in trebled patent damages with $10,000 in statutory copyright damages — reaching $40,000 per defendant. Product IP holders with registered copyrights in manuals or packaging should evaluate whether a combined filing strategy similarly maximises recoveries against anonymous e-commerce infringers.
Platform cooperation makes asset freezes the enforcement lever, not court collection
The court’s order requiring Amazon, Walmart, Temu, TikTok, Shein, PayPal, and Payoneer to freeze and release funds within 7–14 days effectively converts marketplace balances into pre-collected damages. For IP holders, this mechanism makes filing in jurisdictions with established Schedule A precedent — like N.D. Illinois — strategically preferable to jurisdictions where platform compliance is less predictable.
How Xinqi’s patent claim chart strategy secured jurisdiction over anonymous sellers
Xinqi attached claim charts as Exhibit 6 to the verified complaint, directly mapping each defendant’s product to the claims of US11981555B2. This evidentiary approach — combined with screenshot evidence of Illinois-targeted shipping — satisfied personal jurisdiction over anonymous defendants without requiring identification. IP counsel pursuing Schedule A actions should replicate this structure to bulletproof jurisdiction arguments at the preliminary injunction stage.
FRCP 69 supplemental proceedings extend enforcement beyond the judgment date
Paragraph 10 of the judgment grants Xinqi ongoing authority to commence FRCP 69 supplemental proceedings and identify new accounts post-judgment. This ‘rolling enforcement’ provision means the single judgment functions as a standing enforcement order. Competitors operating under multiple seller aliases are not protected by account termination — Xinqi can pursue newly discovered accounts without refiling, a material escalation in enforcement efficiency.
Shanghai v Individuals — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in favour of Shanghai Xinqi on October 22, 2025. All Schedule A defendants failed to appear. The court found willful patent infringement of US11981555B2 and willful copyright infringement of VA 2-415-912, awarding $40,000 per defaulting defendant — $30,000 in trebled patent damages and $10,000 in statutory copyright damages — plus a permanent injunction.
US11981555B2 is a granted U.S. utility patent titled ‘Multifunctional Mason Jar Sealing Device,’ filed under application US17/944828. It covers the structural and functional features of an electric jar sealer. Xinqi submitted claim charts mapping each defendant’s products to the patent’s claims, which the court accepted as evidence of infringement. Screenshot evidence of Illinois-targeted storefronts established personal jurisdiction over anonymous sellers.
The court authorised alternative service by e-mail, combined with any notice defendants received directly from online marketplaces and payment processors. The court found this combination was reasonably calculated to apprise defendants of the action under the circumstances, satisfying due process requirements for service on anonymous international e-commerce sellers — a standard approach in N.D. Illinois Schedule A cases.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, the court awarded a $10,000 reasonable royalty per defendant for patent infringement, then trebled that amount to $30,000 on a finding of willfulness. Separately, under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), the court awarded $10,000 in statutory copyright damages per defendant for willful copyright infringement. The combined total is $40,000 per defaulting defendant, with marketplace funds already frozen and ordered released as partial payment.
Defendants who fail to appear may seek to vacate a default judgment by filing a motion under FRCP 55(c) or 60(b), typically showing good cause, a meritorious defence, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff. However, the threshold is high and the tight 7–14 day window for platform compliance with the asset freeze order means most marketplace funds will have already been released by the time any motion could be filed, limiting practical relief.
Is your mason jar sealer or food preservation product at risk?
US11981555B2 is in active enforcement across major U.S. e-commerce platforms. Run a freedom-to-operate search now to assess claim exposure and monitor Xinqi’s enforcement activity before your next product launch.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.