Jisu Technology v. Schedule A: Default Judgment on Four Neck Fan Patents
Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. secured a default judgment against anonymous online marketplace sellers infringing four neck fan patents across Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart. The Illinois Northern District Court awarded $15,000 in trebled damages per defendant and issued a permanent injunction — a decisive plaintiff win resolved in 377 days.
Default judgment seals four-patent neck fan enforcement sweep
Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese consumer electronics company and holder of four U.S. neck fan patents, filed suit on June 21, 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge John F. Kness. The defendants — identified only as individuals and entities on Schedule A, a common enforcement tactic targeting anonymous e-commerce sellers — were alleged to have sold infringing neck fan products to Illinois residents through major online marketplaces including Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart.
With no defendants entering appearances or contesting the claims, the court entered a final default judgment on July 3, 2025, finding willful infringement on all four patent counts (Counts I–IV). Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, the court awarded a reasonable royalty of $5,000 per defendant, then trebled that figure to $15,000 per defendant for willfulness. The judgment also commands third-party platforms to freeze and transfer funds from defendants’ accounts to Jisu within 14 days, and permanently enjoins all infringing activity across every covered marketplace.
The 377-day duration is somewhat longer than many Schedule A default proceedings, suggesting procedural steps such as TRO hearings, service-by-email approvals, or asset freeze proceedings may have extended the timeline. The public record does not disclose the precise number of Schedule A defendants or the aggregate damages recovered, leaving the full financial scale of the enforcement action unknown. The permanent injunction and platform-level fund-freeze mechanism signal a sophisticated enforcement strategy aimed at deterrence across the e-commerce grey market.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 377 days
377 days — typical Schedule A enforcement actions often conclude faster via TRO; this suggests contested procedural phases
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: liability without contest
When defendants fail to appear or respond, a court may enter default judgment treating the well-pleaded allegations as admitted. Here, Judge Kness found willful infringement on all four patent counts without adversarial briefing. The judgment is final and enforceable — including against third-party payment processors and marketplace platforms — though individual defendants may seek to vacate under Rule 55(c) if they can show good cause.
35 U.S.C. § 284 — treble damagesJisu secures permanent injunction and asset freeze
Shenzhen Jisu Technology obtains a permanent injunction barring all future infringing sales, manufacture, import, and distribution. Critically, Amazon, eBay, PayPal, Payoneer, Temu, and Walmart are ordered to freeze and release defendant funds within 7–14 days. This platform-level enforcement mechanism allows Jisu to recover damages directly from marketplace accounts, significantly improving collection prospects against anonymous overseas sellers.
Permanent injunction grantedWillfulness finding raises stakes for every seller on Schedule A
Each defaulting defendant faces $15,000 in trebled damages plus permanent loss of marketplace accounts used for infringing sales. The willfulness finding, while entered by default, creates a record that could complicate future enforcement defenses. Defendants who believe they were improperly served or lack minimum contacts with Illinois may petition to vacate the default, but the asset freeze creates immediate financial pressure that often deters such challenges.
Willful infringement — defaultE-commerce neck fan sellers face coordinated patent sweep
This case exemplifies the rising use of Schedule A enforcement by patent holders to sweep multiple anonymous e-commerce competitors simultaneously. Jisu’s four-patent portfolio covering neck fan technology creates broad coverage that is difficult to design around. Third-party sellers on Amazon, Temu, and Walmart operating in the wearable personal cooling space should treat this judgment as a signal to conduct freedom-to-operate analysis before listing competing products.
Platform-level enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Consumer electronics company — holder of US11635083B2 and three related neck fan patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A | Company | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified on Schedule A; no legal representation enteredSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Adam Campbell | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward L. Bishop | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John H. Choi | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas S. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sameeul Haque | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | John H. Choi & Associates LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John F. Kness | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The judgment’s willfulness finding on all four counts — entered by default — carries significant legal weight. Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, a willfulness finding is a prerequisite for treble damages, and Judge Kness applied the full treble multiplier to the $5,000 reasonable royalty base. The platform-directed injunction paragraphs are notable for their specificity: naming Amazon, eBay, Temu, Walmart, PayPal, and Payoneer by name suggests Jisu provided particularised evidence of which marketplace accounts were used. The phrase ‘This is a Final Judgment’ forecloses further district court proceedings absent a Rule 55(c) motion.
US11635083B2 — Neck fan wearable personal cooling device portfolio
The four asserted patents — US11635083B2, US11661947B2, US11719250B2, and US11920602B2 — cover wearable neck fan technology, a product category that has grown rapidly in consumer electronics. The application numbers (US17/471178 through US18/134571) span filings from approximately 2021 to 2023, indicating a sustained prosecution effort to build layered coverage. The designations ‘B2’ confirm these are granted patents with corrections or supplemental prosecution history, suggesting active maintenance of the portfolio.
Collectively, the four patents create overlapping protection that is difficult for competitors to design around without departing substantially from mainstream neck fan architectures. In a market dominated by anonymous cross-border sellers on Amazon and Temu, this portfolio is strategically significant: it provides a plaintiff with multiple independent infringement theories against any single product. For IP teams at consumer electronics brands, Jisu’s portfolio represents a potential blocking position across the wearable cooling segment that warrants monitoring.
Should your neck fan product line be cleared against Jisu’s patents?
Any company designing, importing, or selling wearable neck fans through U.S. e-commerce channels — particularly Amazon, Walmart, Temu, or eBay — should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against US11635083B2, US11661947B2, US11719250B2, and US11920602B2. This case demonstrates that Jisu is actively enforcing all four patents simultaneously, with willfulness findings and trebled damages at stake. The risk is not hypothetical: the Schedule A mechanism means enforcement can sweep in dozens of sellers at once.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map claim elements from all four Jisu patents against your product specifications, identify prior art that may limit claim scope, and flag any pending continuation applications in Jisu’s prosecution pipeline. For product managers launching neck fan or wearable cooling SKUs, an Eureka FTO report provides the documented due diligence needed to assess litigation risk and inform design-around decisions before market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11920602B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar neck fan and wearable cooling patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving Schedule A enforcement of wearable personal cooling device patents before the Northern District of Illinois, including similar default judgment proceedings.
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 Neck fan-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.
DecidedShenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.’s broader IP enforcement history
Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the wearable cooling device IP landscape
Jisu’s coordinated four-patent default judgment sets a precedent for aggressive Schedule A enforcement in the fast-growing personal cooling market.
Four-patent portfolios amplify Schedule A enforcement leverage
Asserting four patents simultaneously across a Schedule A roster means each defendant faces multiple counts of willful infringement. This stacking strategy raises per-defendant exposure and makes contesting individual claims less economically rational. Companies building neck fan or wearable cooling product lines should audit all four Jisu patents — US11635083B2, US11661947B2, US11719250B2, and US11920602B2 — for potential claim overlap.
Platform fund-freeze orders are now standard enforcement tools in N.D. Ill.
The court’s order directing Amazon, eBay, PayPal, Payoneer, Temu, and Walmart to freeze and transfer defendant funds within days reflects how mature Schedule A practice has become in the Northern District of Illinois. For sellers on these platforms, any patent dispute filed in N.D. Ill. carries immediate liquidity risk — not just injunctive exposure — making proactive FTO analysis a commercial necessity.
Jisu’s application date strategy suggests further continuation filings likely
Four patents filed across application numbers US17/717131, US17/471178, US17/585594, and US18/134571 indicate a continuation filing strategy. The most recent application (US18/134571 → US11920602B2) suggests Jisu may be prosecuting additional continuations, extending patent coverage into next-generation neck fan architectures. Competitors should monitor Jisu’s prosecution history for pending claims.
Default judgment collection risk may drive supplemental proceedings in 2025–2026
The judgment preserves Jisu’s right to commence supplemental proceedings under Rule 69 for defendants where funds fall short of the $15,000 award. Given the anonymous nature of Schedule A defendants, expect continued discovery-asset proceedings and possible new filings against additional seller accounts — a pattern consistent with serial enforcement campaigns in the N.D. Ill. marketplace IP docket.
Shenzhen v Individuals — key questions answered
Jisu asserted four U.S. patents: US11635083B2, US11661947B2, US11719250B2, and US11920602B2 — all covering wearable neck fan technology. The court found the defaulting defendants liable for willful infringement on all four counts and awarded treble damages of $15,000 per defendant.
The ‘Schedule A’ structure allows a plaintiff to sue multiple anonymous online sellers in a single action, identifying them by marketplace account rather than legal name. In this case, defendants sold infringing neck fans on Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart. None entered an appearance, leading to default judgment. This approach is common in N.D. Illinois for enforcing IP rights against cross-border e-commerce infringers.
Judge Kness awarded $15,000 per defaulting defendant — a $5,000 reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. § 284, trebled to $15,000 due to the willful infringement finding. The court also ordered third-party payment processors including Amazon, eBay, PayPal, Payoneer, Temu, and Walmart to freeze and release defendant funds within 7–14 days of the order.
The permanent injunction prohibits defaulting defendants from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing any products infringing Jisu’s four neck fan patents. It also directs platform providers — Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart — to disable infringing listings and freeze associated accounts. The injunction binds the defendants’ officers, agents, employees, and anyone acting in concert with them.
Yes. A defaulting defendant may move to vacate the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) by demonstrating good cause — for example, improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction, or a meritorious defense. However, the asset freeze ordered against payment processors creates immediate financial pressure that typically discourages such challenges in Schedule A proceedings. The public record does not indicate any such motions were filed before the July 3, 2025 final judgment.
Selling wearable neck fans? Run an FTO before your next listing
Jisu’s four-patent enforcement sweep shows that anonymous marketplace sellers face trebled damages and account freezes with minimal warning. PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent maps claim scope across all four asserted patents and flags continuation risk before you go to market.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.