Book a demo

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

Try now
Shenzhen Jisu Technology v. Schedule A Defendants – Neck Fan Patents | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:24-cv-05215
FiledJun 2024
ClosedJul 2025
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
377days
377 days — typical Schedule A enforcement actions often conclude faster via TRO; this suggests contested procedural phases
Patents asserted
4
US11635083B2, US11661947B2, US11719250B2 and US11920602B2 — four neck fan design and utility patents asserted
Outcome
Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff
Default judgment on merits; willful infringement found on all four patent counts
Cost ruling
Treble Damages
$15,000 per defaulting defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 284; surety bond of $10,000 released to plaintiff
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:24-cv-05215
CourtIllinois Northern
JudgeJohn F. Kness
FiledJune 21, 2024
ClosedJuly 3, 2025
Duration377 days
OutcomeJudgment on the merits for Plaintiff
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisJudgment on the merits for Plaintiff
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 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

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUN 21 2024, DEC–JAN — 377 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Shenzhen Jisu 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. JUN 21 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings JUL 3 2025 Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff 377 DAYS TOTAL
Court ruling

Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

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 damages
Patent holder outcome

Jisu 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 granted
Defendant exposure

Willfulness 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 — default
Commercial implications

E-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 risk
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:24-cv-05215 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffShenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.CompanyConsumer electronics company — holder of US11635083B2 and three related neck fan patentsSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule ACompanyAnonymous online marketplace sellers identified on Schedule A; no legal representation enteredSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBenjamin Adam CampbellAttorneyCounsel for Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselEdward L. BishopAttorneyCounsel for Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJohn H. ChoiAttorneyCounsel for Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselNicholas S. LeeAttorneyCounsel for Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSameeul HaqueAttorneyCounsel for Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmBishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd.Law FirmRepresenting Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmDickinson Wright PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmJohn H. Choi & Associates LLCLaw FirmRepresenting Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge John F. KnessJudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. and against all Defendants identified in the attached Schedule A who have not otherwise been dismissed from this action (the “Defaulting Defendants”). Defaulting Defendants have sold products that infringe upon Plaintiff’s federally registered patents, as claimed in U.S. Patent Nos. 11,635,083 B2 (“the ‘083 Patent); 11,661,947 B2 (“the ‘947 Patent”); 11,719,250 B2 (“the ‘250 Patent”); and 11,920,602 B2 (“the ‘602 Patent”) (collectively, “Plaintiff’s Patents”) to residents of Illinois. Defaulting Defendants are liable for willful patent infringement on each of the four patent infringement claims (Counts I to IV) in Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: Case: 1:24-cv-05215 Document #: 117 Filed: 07/03/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:3987 2 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 Patents or use of any product that infringes upon Plaintiff’s Patents 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 Patents; 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 sale that is protected under Plaintiff’s Patents; c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defaulting Defendants’ products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff and its rights in Plaintiff’s Patents; 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 that embody any of the claims of Plaintiff’s Patents. 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 Case: 1:24-cv-05215 Document #: 117 Filed: 07/03/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:3988 3 marketplace platforms such as Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), eBay, Inc. (“eBay”), WhaleCo, Inc., (“Temu”), and Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”), (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 Patents; 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 Patents 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 Patents. 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. 4. Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, Plaintiff is awarded damages equal to a reasonable royalty from each of the Defaulting Defendants in the amount of $5,000. 5. Under 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. As a result of the damages awarded to Plaintiff in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Order, the total awarded to the Plaintiff is $15,000 per Defaulting Defendant. Case: 1:24-cv-05215 Document #: 117 Filed: 07/03/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3989 4 7. Any Third-Party Providers holding funds for Defaulting Defendants, including, but not limited to, Amazon, eBay, PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”), Payoneer Global, Inc. (“Payoneer”), Temu, and Walmart, 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 awarded in Paragraphs 4 through 6 above) or other of Defaulting Defendants’ assets. 8. All monies (up to the total damages and attorneys’ fees awarded in Paragraph 4 through 6 above) currently restrained in Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts, including monies held by Third-Party Providers such as Amazon, eBay, PayPal, Payoneer, Temu, and Walmart, are hereby released to Plaintiff as partial payment of the above-identified damages, and Third Party Providers, including Amazon, eBay, PayPal, Payoneer, Temu, and Walmart, are ordered to release to Plaintiff the amounts from Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of this Order. 9. 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 Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. 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 email addresses identified in Exhibit A of Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment and any e-mail addresses provided for Defaulting Defendants by third parties. 11. The ten-thousand-dollar ($10,000) surety bond posted by Plaintiff is hereby released to Plaintiff or its counsel, John H. Choi & Associates LLC. The Clerk of the Court is Case: 1:24-cv-05215 Document #: 117 Filed: 07/03/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:3990 5 directed to return the surety bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court to Plaintiff or its counsel. This is a Final Judgment.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:24-cv-05215, Illinois Northern District Court

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.

PACER case 1:24-cv-05215 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US11635083B2 — Neck fan wearable personal cooling device portfolio

Publication No.US11920602B2
Application No.US18/134571
Patent details
ProductWearable neck fan personal cooling device
Cited in actionJune 21, 2024

Publication No.US11719250B2
Application No.US17/585594
Patent details
ProductWearable neck fan airflow and structural design
Cited in actionJune 21, 2024

Publication No.US11661947B2
Application No.US17/471178
Patent details
ProductWearable neck fan ventilation and motor assembly
Cited in actionJune 21, 2024

Publication No.US11635083B2
Application No.US17/717131
Patent details
ProductWearable neck fan enclosure and cooling mechanism
Cited in actionJune 21, 2024

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.

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

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.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11920602B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern case history, Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Related neck fan Schedule A casesN.D. Ill. default judgment trendsWearable cooling patent disputesJisu prior enforcement actions
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What 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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated analysis on Jisu’s continuation patent risk and N.D. Ill. Schedule A enforcement trends in the personal cooling device sector.
Continuation filing riskRule 69 supplemental strategySimilar N.D. Ill. Schedule A trends
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Shenzhen v Individuals — key questions answered

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

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.

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.