Shenzhen Aixining v. Nengwu He: Design Patent Case Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Shenzhen Aixining Trading Co. filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against Nengwu He over acrylic sign holders sold on Amazon. The court dismissed the case sua sponte after 176 days, finding it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant — a rare judicial self-correction that prevented a potentially unenforceable default judgment.
Illinois Court Blocks Default Judgment Over Jurisdiction Gap in Amazon Design Patent Dispute
Shenzhen Aixining Trading Co., Ltd., a Chinese e-commerce entity, filed suit on November 6, 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois against Nengwu He, asserting infringement of design patent USD1029109S — which covers the ornamental appearance of acrylic sign holders. The accused products were sold on Amazon under ASINs B07YNNJ2TB, B0D7SFJY17, and B0D7SDMFKB. Representation for the plaintiff was handled by Avek IP LLC, a firm active in Amazon marketplace IP enforcement; the defendant filed no appearance.
With the defendant unrepresented, the case appeared headed for a default judgment. However, Judge Jorge L. Alonso intervened sua sponte, declining to enter default judgment and instead dismissing the case on May 1, 2025, on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Nengwu He. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Dismissed’ without specification of prejudice, leaving the door to re-filing in a proper forum technically open, though the public record does not confirm whether prejudice was intended.
The 176-day duration is relatively short, but the case never advanced on the merits. What is notable is the court’s proactive refusal to issue a default judgment it deemed unenforceable — a pattern seen with increasing frequency in Amazon marketplace enforcement actions targeting overseas sellers. The public record does not disclose where Nengwu He is domiciled or what contacts, if any, existed with Illinois, leaving the core infringement question entirely unresolved.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 176 days
176 days — resolved faster than the median N.D. Illinois patent case, though without reaching the merits
Sua sponte dismissal: what the court’s jurisdiction ruling means for both parties
Court dismissed sua sponte — no default judgment entered
A sua sponte dismissal means the court acted on its own initiative, without a motion from either party. Judge Alonso determined that entering a default judgment against Nengwu He would be futile because the court lacked personal jurisdiction — a threshold requirement regardless of whether a defendant appears. This reflects courts’ increasing scrutiny of Amazon enforcement actions that nominally cite an Illinois marketplace nexus without establishing true defendant contacts with the state.
Jurisdiction — no merits rulingPublic record is silent on whether dismissal was with or without prejudice
The termination basis reads ‘Case Dismissed’ without specifying ‘with prejudice’ or ‘without prejudice.’ Courts dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction — rather than on the merits — typically do so without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff could theoretically re-file in a forum with proper jurisdiction over the defendant. However, this page cannot confirm that characterisation from the available record. Practitioners should review the docket order directly before advising on re-filing options.
Prejudice status unclearInfringement claim unresolved — enforcement strategy must be reconsidered
Shenzhen Aixining obtained no relief in this action. USD1029109S remains in force and the underlying infringement allegation was never adjudicated, but the plaintiff must now identify a court with proper jurisdiction over Nengwu He before re-asserting its rights. For Chinese plaintiffs targeting individual Amazon sellers of unknown domicile, establishing the defendant’s contacts with a particular U.S. district is a prerequisite that should precede filing.
No injunction or damages awardedAmazon design patent enforcement faces growing jurisdictional headwinds
This dismissal is consistent with a broader trend of N.D. Illinois — a popular venue for Amazon IP enforcement — scrutinising whether Amazon Marketplace sales alone create sufficient minimum contacts to support personal jurisdiction over individual sellers. Design patent holders operating e-commerce enforcement programmes should audit their jurisdiction analysis before filing, particularly where defendants are overseas individuals with no identifiable U.S. physical presence beyond Amazon listings.
Amazon IP enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Aixining Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese e-commerce seller and design patent holder — holder of USD1029109S covering acrylic sign holdersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nengwu He | Individual | Individual seller Nengwu He, accused of selling competing acrylic sign holders on Amazon; filed no appearanceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Allen Justin Poplin | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Aixining Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wangxue Deng | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Aixining Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Avek IP LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Aixining Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jorge L. Alonso | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s sua sponte ruling is notable for its explicit rationale: Judge Alonso declined to enter default not because the default procedurally failed, but because any resulting judgment would be unenforceable against a defendant over whom the court lacked personal jurisdiction. This suggests the court conducted at least a threshold review of jurisdiction independently of any party motion — consistent with the principle that subject-matter and personal jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time. The infringement merits of USD1029109S were never reached.
USD1029109S — Ornamental Design for an Acrylic Sign Holder
USD1029109S is a U.S. design patent, filed under application number 29/892184, protecting the ornamental appearance of an acrylic sign holder. Design patents in the U.S. cover the novel, non-functional visual characteristics of a product — here, the specific aesthetic configuration of a clear acrylic display holder used in retail and point-of-sale contexts. The products at issue were sold on Amazon under three ASINs, suggesting a commercially active product line rather than a prototype.
Acrylic sign holder design patents are a common enforcement vehicle in Amazon marketplace IP programmes, where visual product similarity between competing listings can be assessed rapidly using product images. The enforceability of USD1029109S against third-party sellers remains intact following this dismissal; however, the plaintiff’s ability to pursue Nengwu He specifically depends on identifying a court with proper personal jurisdiction. Competitors in the retail display accessories segment should treat this patent as active and screen their acrylic sign holder designs accordingly.
Should you run an FTO against USD1029109S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling acrylic sign holders — particularly through Amazon or similar e-commerce platforms — should assess clearance against USD1029109S. Design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: if an ordinary purchaser would mistake the accused product for the patented design, infringement may be found. The fact that this case was dismissed on jurisdiction, not invalidity, means the patent’s claims have never been narrowed or invalidated by a court.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD1029109S against your product’s ornamental design profile, identify prior art that could support an invalidity challenge, and flag any continuations or related design applications in Shenzhen Aixining’s portfolio. For Amazon sellers in the retail display accessories space, building a documented FTO file also strengthens your response if you receive a cease-and-desist or an Amazon IP complaint referencing this patent.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1029109S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Amazon Design Patent Enforcement Cases in N.D. Illinois
Browse comparable design patent infringement actions targeting Amazon marketplace sellers in the Northern District of Illinois, including cases involving acrylic and display product designs.
What this case signals for Amazon design patent enforcement IP strategy
Jurisdictional dismissals in Amazon IP cases are rising. Here is what design patent holders and Amazon marketplace competitors need to know.
Jurisdiction analysis must precede filing — not follow default
Courts in the N.D. Illinois are increasingly unwilling to enter default judgments in Amazon marketplace cases where personal jurisdiction over the defendant is not established. Design patent holders should conduct a jurisdiction memo before filing, identifying defendant contacts with the chosen forum beyond mere Amazon sales activity.
USD1029109S remains enforceable — but needs the right forum
The dismissal did not invalidate or narrow USD1029109S. Shenzhen Aixining’s acrylic sign holder design patent survived the proceeding intact. Competitors should not read this outcome as a weakening of the patent’s scope — it is a procedural result, not a merits finding.
Shenzhen v Nengwu — key questions answered
Judge Alonso dismissed the case sua sponte because the court found it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant Nengwu He. Even though the defendant did not appear, the court declined to enter a default judgment it considered unenforceable, closing the case on May 1, 2025 without reaching the merits of the design patent infringement claim.
A sua sponte dismissal means the judge acted on their own initiative, without a motion from either party. For the plaintiff, it means the infringement claims were never adjudicated. Depending on whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice — which the public record does not specify — Shenzhen Aixining may be able to re-file in a jurisdiction where personal jurisdiction over Nengwu He can be properly established.
Yes. The dismissal was procedural — based on personal jurisdiction over the defendant — not a ruling on the validity or scope of USD1029109S. The patent was not invalidated, narrowed, or subjected to any inter partes review in connection with this case. It remains a live enforcement asset for Shenzhen Aixining.
The complaint identified acrylic sign holders sold on Amazon under ASINs B07YNNJ2TB, B0D7SFJY17, and B0D7SDMFKB as the accused products. These are retail display accessories — clear acrylic holders used to display signage or menus — whose ornamental design allegedly replicated the protected appearance claimed in USD1029109S.
Courts in the Northern District of Illinois have not uniformly held that Amazon marketplace sales, standing alone, establish personal jurisdiction over a seller. The minimum contacts analysis requires purposeful availment of the forum state. Judge Alonso’s refusal to enter default here is consistent with growing judicial scrutiny of whether Amazon listings directed at Illinois consumers suffice, particularly when the defendant’s domicile and physical contacts with Illinois are unknown.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.