Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Shanghai Xinqi v. Schedule A Defendants — Mason Jar Sealer Patent | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:25-cv-00272
FiledJan 2025
ClosedOct 2025
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
286days
286 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the median Schedule A e-commerce enforcement action
Patents asserted
1
US11981555B2 — multifunctional mason jar sealing device; single utility patent asserted alongside Copyright VA 2-415-912
Outcome
Default Judgment
Plaintiff win by default — defendants failed to appear; allegations deemed admitted and willful infringement found
Cost ruling
$40,000/defendant
$10,000 trebled patent damages plus $10,000 statutory copyright damages awarded per defaulting defendant
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:25-cv-00272
CourtIllinois Northern
JudgeJeffrey I Cummings
FiledJanuary 9, 2025
ClosedOctober 22, 2025
Duration286 days
OutcomeDefault Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDefault Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Illinois Northern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Default Judgment in 286 days

286 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the median Schedule A e-commerce enforcement action

Case timeline: Complaint filed JAN 9 2025, JUN–JUL — 286 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. v The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. JAN 9 2025 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings OCT 22 2025 Default Judgment 286 DAYS TOTAL
Default judgment

Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

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. § 284
Plaintiff outcome

Xinqi 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 freeze
Defendant outcome

Defaulting 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 liability
Commercial implications

Multi-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 risk
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:25-cv-00272 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffShanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.CompanyChinese consumer electronics manufacturer — holder of US11981555B2 for mason jar sealing deviceSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule ACompanyAnonymous e-commerce sellers operating storefronts on Amazon, Walmart, Temu, TikTok, and SheinSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBenjamin Adam CampbellAttorneyCounsel for Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBriana HammonsAttorneyCounsel for Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselEdward L. BishopAttorneyCounsel for Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselNicholas S. LeeAttorneyCounsel for Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSameeul HaqueAttorneyCounsel for Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmBishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd.Law FirmRepresenting Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmDickinson Wright PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Jeffrey I CummingsJudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“This action having been commenced by Plaintiff Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) against the defendants identified on Schedule A, and using the Online Marketplace Accounts identified on Schedule A (collectively, the “Defendant Internet Stores”), and Plaintiff having moved for entry of Default and Default Judgment against the defendants identified on Schedule A attached herewith (collectively, “Defaulting Defendants”); This Court having entered a preliminary injunction; Plaintiff having properly completed service of process on Defaulting Defendants, the combination of providing notice via e-mail, along with any notice that Defaulting Defendants received from online marketplaces and payment processors, being notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise Defaulting Defendants of the pendency of the action and affording them the opportunity to answer and present their objections; and Case: 1:25-cv-00272 Document #: 79 Filed: 10/22/25 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1145 2 None of the Defaulting Defendants having answered or appeared in any way, and the time for answering having expired, so that the allegations of the Complaint are uncontroverted and are deemed admitted; This Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over Defaulting Defendants because Defaulting Defendants directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Plaintiff has provided a basis to conclude that Defaulting Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more seller aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, and have sold products that infringe upon Plaintiff’s federally registered patent, as claim in 11,981,555 (“the ‘555 Patent”), entitled MULTIFUNCTIONAL MASON JAR SEALING DEVICE, and Plaintiff’s federally registered Copyright Registration No. VA 2-415-912 for works associated with its Electric Mason Jar Sealer Instruction Manual (“Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Work”), to residents of Illinois. In this case, Plaintiff has presented screenshot evidence that each Defendant e-commerce store is reaching out to do business with Illinois residents by operating one or more commercial, interactive internet stores through which Illinois residents can and do purchase products that infringe Plaintiff’s Patents. See Schedule A and Exhibit 2 to the Verified Amended Complaint, Docket Nos. [5-1], [6] and [7], which includes links and product ID numbers for the subject storefronts and infringing products and screenshot evidence confirming that each Defendant e-commerce store does stand ready, willing and able to ship its infringing products to customers in Illinois; see also Exhibit 6 to the Verified Complaint, Docket Nos. [5-3], which are claim charts outlining infringement by each Defendant. Case: 1:25-cv-00272 Document #: 79 Filed: 10/22/25 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:1146 3 This Court further finds that Defaulting Defendants are liable for willful patent infringement on patent infringement claim (Counts I) and copyright infringement claim (Count II) in Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint. Accordingly, this Court orders that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED as follows, that Defaulting Defendants are deemed in default, and that this Default Judgment is entered against Defaulting Defendants. This Court further orders that: 1. Defaulting Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them be permanently enjoined and restrained from: a. Making, using offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for subsequent sale any products that infringe upon Plaintiff’s Patent or use of any product that infringes upon Plaintiff’s Patent in any manner in connection with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product that is not a genuine Plaintiff product or not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with Plaintiff’s Patent; b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a genuine Plaintiff product or any other product produced by Plaintiff, that is not Plaintiff’s or not produced under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff and approved by Plaintiff for use of the inventions claimed in Plaintiff’s Patent; c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defaulting Defendants’ products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of Case: 1:25-cv-00272 Document #: 79 Filed: 10/22/25 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:1147 4 Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff and its rights in Plaintiff’s Patent; and d. manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, products or inventory not manufactured by or for Plaintiff, nor authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered for sale, and which infringe upon the inventions claimed in Plaintiff’s Patent. 2. Defaulting Defendants and any third party with actual notice of this Order who is providing services for any of the Defaulting Defendants, or in connection with any of the Defaulting Defendants’ Online Marketplaces, including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”), Whale Co. (“Temu”), TikTok, and Shein (collectively, the “Third Party Providers”), shall within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order cease: a. using, linking to, transferring, selling, exercising control over, or otherwise owning the Online Marketplace Accounts, or any other online marketplace account that is being used to sell or is the means by which Defaulting Defendants could continue to sell goods that infringe upon Plaintiff’s Patent and Plaintiff’s Copyright Work; and b. operating and/or hosting websites that are involved with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product infringing Plaintiff’s Patent, Copyrighted Works, or any reproductions, copies or colorable imitations thereof that is not a genuine Plaintiff product or not authorized by Plaintiff to utilize the inventions claimed in Plaintiff’s Patent and Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Works. Case: 1:25-cv-00272 Document #: 79 Filed: 10/22/25 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:1148 5 3. Upon Plaintiff’s request, those with notice of this Order, including the Third Party Providers as defined in Paragraph 2, shall within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of such notice, disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with Defaulting Defendants in connection with the sale of infringing goods using the inventions claimed in Plaintiff’s Patents and Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Works. 4. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Plaintiff is awarded damages equal to a reasonable royalty from each of the Defaulting Defendants in the amount of $10,000.00. 5. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Defaulting Defendants are subject to treble damages and Plaintiff is awarded three times the amount awarded in paragraph 4. 6. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages for willful copyright infringement in the amount of $10,000 against each Defaulting Defendant. 7. As a result of the damages awarded to Plaintiff in paragraphs 4 through 6 of this Order, the total awarded to the Plaintiff is $40,000 per Defaulting Defendant. 8. Any Third Party Providers holding funds for Defaulting Defendants, including, without limitation, Amazon Pay, eBay, PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”), Payoneer Global, Inc. (“Payoneer”), Walmart, TikTok, Shein shall, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order, permanently restrain and enjoin any accounts connected to Defaulting Defendants or the Defendant Internet Stores from transferring or disposing of any funds (up to the total damages and attorneys’ fees awarded in Paragraph 4 through 7 above) or other of Defaulting Defendants’ assets. 9. All monies (up to the total damages awarded in Paragraph 4 through 7 above) currently restrained in Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts, including monies held by Third Party Providers such as Amazon Pay, eBay, PayPal, Payoneer, Walmart, TikTok, and Case: 1:25-cv-00272 Document #: 79 Filed: 10/22/25 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:1149 6 Shein are hereby released to Plaintiff as partial payment of the above-identified damages, and Third Party Providers, including Amazon Pay, eBay, PayPal, Payoneer, Walmart, TikTok, and Shein are ordered to release to Plaintiff the amounts from Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of this Order. 10. Until Plaintiff has recovered full payment of monies owed to it by any Defaulting Defendant, Plaintiff shall have the ongoing authority to commence supplemental proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69. 11. In the event that Plaintiff identifies any additional online marketplace accounts or financial accounts owned by Defaulting Defendants, Plaintiff may send notice of any supplemental proceeding, including a citation to discover assets, to Defaulting Defendants by e-mail at the e-mail addresses provided for Defaulting Defendants by third parties. 12. The ten-thousand dollar ($10,000.00) surety bond posted by Plaintiff is hereby released to Plaintiff or its counsel, Dickinson Wright PLLC. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the surety bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court to Plaintiff or its counsel. This is a Default Judgment in Case No., 1:25-00272.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:25-cv-00272, Illinois Northern District Court

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.

PACER case 1:25-cv-00272 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US11981555B2 — Multifunctional Mason Jar Sealing Device

Publication No.US11981555B2
Application No.US17/944828
Patent details
ProductMultifunctional electric mason jar vacuum sealing device
Cited in actionJanuary 9, 2025

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.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

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.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11981555B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern case history, Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Mason jar sealer IP casesN.D. Ill. Schedule A defaultsKitchen device patent suitsMulti-platform asset freeze orders
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What 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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper analysis of Schedule A enforcement tactics and kitchen device patent strategy at N.D. Illinois district court level.
Claim chart jurisdiction tacticRolling FRCP 69 enforcementDual IP stacking analysis
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Shanghai v Individuals — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

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.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.