Shangyou Jiayi Lighting v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in 73 Days
Shangyou Jiayi Lighting Product Co., Ltd. sued anonymous e-commerce sellers for infringing its vine lamp design patent (US10822258B2) on platforms including Amazon, eBay, and Temu. The Illinois Northern District Court entered a default judgment within 73 days, issuing a permanent injunction and ordering disgorgement of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
Swift default judgment secures injunction for Chinese lighting designer
On 24 September 2024, Shangyou Jiayi Lighting Product Co., Ltd., a Chinese lighting manufacturer, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against an unnamed group of online marketplace sellers, identified only as the ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ The complaint alleged infringement of US10822258B2, a design patent covering vine lamp products, with infringing goods being sold through seller aliases on Amazon, eBay, Alibaba/AliExpress, Walmart, Target, and Temu.
The case closed on 6 December 2024 via default judgment — meaning the defendants failed to appear or respond, and the court ruled entirely in the plaintiff’s favour without a contested merits hearing. Judge Sunil R. Harjani issued a permanent injunction barring the defaulting defendants from making, selling, importing, or facilitating the sale of the infringing products, and awarded plaintiff profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which allows recovery of a defendant’s total profits from the sale of an article bearing an infringed design patent.
The 73-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated tempo typical of Schedule A design patent cases, which are engineered for speed: a TRO freezes marketplace accounts early, and anonymous defendants who fail to respond face near-certain default. What the public record does not reveal is the total quantum of profits recovered from individual defendants, as the damages chart referenced in the order is not reproduced in the publicly available docket text. The $40,000 bond posted to secure the TRO was returned in full to plaintiff’s counsel, suggesting no defendant successfully challenged the preliminary relief.
Filing to Default Judgment in 73 days
Case resolved in 73 days — well below the median N.D. Ill. patent case duration
Default judgment entered: what the order means for both sides
Default judgment: a win without a fight
A default judgment is entered when defendants fail to plead or otherwise defend. The court accepts the well-pleaded allegations as true and may award all relief requested. Here, Judge Harjani found design patent infringement established, issued a permanent injunction, and ordered profit disgorgement — all without any defence being raised. The order also directs third-party platforms to freeze and transfer funds within seven calendar days.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)Permanent injunction and § 289 profits secured
Shangyou Jiayi obtains a permanent injunction across all major U.S. marketplaces and direct access to frozen funds held by Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, Walmart, Target, and Temu. Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, design patent holders may recover the infringer’s total article profits — not merely reasonable royalty — which can make even small-volume sellers highly exposed. The $40,000 TRO bond was fully returned, meaning the preliminary relief cost the plaintiff nothing net.
35 U.S.C. § 289 profits remedyAccounts frozen, assets transferred, injunction permanent
Defaulting defendants face a permanent injunction they cannot practically challenge without first moving to vacate the default — a high bar requiring a showing of good cause, a meritorious defence, and no prejudice to the plaintiff. Any marketplace funds up to the damages award have already been transferred to the plaintiff within seven days of the order. Forming new entities or aliases to circumvent the injunction is explicitly prohibited and creates contempt risk.
Permanent injunction — no appeal filedSchedule A enforcement: a proven deterrent for IP owners
This case follows the well-established ‘Schedule A’ litigation template widely used by Chinese IP holders and U.S. rights owners alike to combat counterfeit and infringing goods on e-commerce platforms. The combination of a rapid TRO, account freezes, and § 289’s total-profits remedy creates strong financial deterrence. For competing lighting product sellers, it signals that design patents on ornamental product features are being actively enforced with meaningful financial consequences.
E-commerce design patent enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shangyou Jiayi Lighting Prodcut Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese lighting manufacturer — holder of design patent US10822258B2 for vine lamp productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce seller network operating under pseudonymous aliases on major online marketplacesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Allen Justin Poplin | Attorney | Counsel for Shangyou Jiayi Lighting Prodcut Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wangxue Deng | Attorney | Counsel for Shangyou Jiayi Lighting Prodcut Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Avek IP LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shangyou Jiayi Lighting Prodcut Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sunil R. Harjani | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order establishes liability and relief entirely on uncontested allegations, which is standard where defendants fail to appear. The explicit extension of the injunction to ‘new entities or associations’ formed to circumvent the order reflects judicial awareness of the alias-hopping common among Schedule A defendants. The reference to a damages chart not reproduced in public text means the precise per-defendant profit awards are not publicly verifiable from this record alone.
US10822258B2 — ornamental vine lamp design patent
US10822258B2, filed under application number US16/076920, is a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a vine lamp product. Design patents under U.S. law protect the unique visual characteristics of a manufactured article — not its functional attributes. The patent was asserted by Shangyou Jiayi Lighting Product Co., Ltd., a Chinese lighting manufacturer, against anonymous marketplace sellers reproducing the protected aesthetic in competing products sold online.
In the decorative lighting market, where product differentiation is largely aesthetic, design patents provide enforceable exclusivity over visual form factors. The vine lamp category — characterised by flexible, branch-like structures with integrated LED elements — is a high-volume product segment on platforms such as Amazon and Temu. A granted design patent in this space creates a direct enforcement tool against copycat listings, and the § 289 total-profits remedy amplifies the commercial value of even a single design registration.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10822258B2?
Any manufacturer, importer, or marketplace seller offering vine lamp, branch-style LED, or ornamental flexible lighting products for the U.S. market should assess their exposure against US10822258B2. Given that this patent has already supported a permanent injunction and account freeze order in the Northern District of Illinois, the enforcement risk is demonstrated — not merely theoretical. Private label sellers sourcing decorative lighting from China for Amazon, eBay, Walmart, or Temu listings are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of US10822258B2 against your product designs, identify design-around opportunities, and flag related design patent families filed by Shangyou Jiayi or similar rights holders. Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools can also alert you to new Schedule A filings in the N.D. Illinois that may name product categories overlapping with your catalogue — enabling proactive rather than reactive IP risk management.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10822258B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in N.D. Illinois lighting sector
Browse comparable Schedule A infringement actions involving ornamental lighting and décor design patents litigated in the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the decorative lighting IP landscape
Chinese design patent holders are increasingly using U.S. courts and Schedule A tactics to protect ornamental product IP against anonymous marketplace sellers.
Design patents are enforcement-ready weapons for e-commerce brands
US10822258B2 demonstrates that a single design patent on a product’s ornamental appearance can support a TRO, account freeze, and permanent injunction across six major platforms simultaneously. For lighting and décor brands, securing design patents — not just utility patents — is now a frontline commercial strategy, not a secondary filing.
§ 289 total-profits exposure makes even small sellers high-risk defendants
Unlike utility patent damages, § 289 allows recovery of the infringer’s entire profit from the infringing article, not just the profit attributable to the patented design. Sellers on Amazon or Temu who copy a protected lamp design face total revenue disgorgement, not a modest royalty. This asymmetry strongly incentivises early settlement and exit from infringing product lines.
Shangyou v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in favour of Shangyou Jiayi Lighting on 6 December 2024. The court issued a permanent injunction against the defaulting defendants and awarded profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 for infringement of design patent US10822258B2 covering vine lamp products. The case closed 73 days after filing.
Section 289 allows a design patent holder to recover the infringer’s total profits from the sale of any article bearing the infringed design — not merely a reasonable royalty or lost profits attributable to the design. This can mean full revenue disgorgement on the infringing product, making design patent enforcement financially powerful, particularly against high-volume e-commerce sellers.
Schedule A litigation is a procedural strategy in which a plaintiff files a single complaint against a large group of anonymous online sellers identified only by marketplace aliases listed on a sealed schedule. It typically involves an immediate TRO to freeze marketplace accounts, followed by service via electronic means. Defendants who fail to respond face default judgment, account asset transfer, and permanent injunctions across major platforms.
Yes. A defaulting defendant can move to vacate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) by demonstrating good cause, a meritorious defence, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff. However, this is a high bar and becomes harder once funds have been transferred. The risk of vacatur is a known structural issue with Schedule A default judgments, which is why maintaining per-defendant infringement evidence is important for enforcement longevity.
The default judgment order covered Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., Walmart, Target, and Temu. These third-party providers were directed to freeze and transfer funds from the defaulting defendants’ accounts within seven calendar days of receiving the order, and to permanently enjoin those accounts from disposing of assets up to the damages award.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.