Shenzhen Kunshengze v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Design Patent USD0980990S
A Chinese e-commerce company secured a federal default judgment against anonymous marketplace sellers for infringing ornamental design patent USD0980990S. The Illinois Northern District Court awarded up to $50,000 per defaulting defendant — a resolution reached in just 112 days from filing.
Schedule A default judgment secures design patent damages in 112 days
Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd., a Chinese e-commerce entity, filed suit on July 9, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a class of anonymous online sellers — identified only as partnerships and unincorporated associations on Schedule A. The action alleged infringement of design patent USD0980990S (application number US29/814406), covering an ornamental product design sold through third-party online marketplaces.
The case resolved via default judgment on October 29, 2024 — 112 days after filing. None of the defendants appeared or contested the action, prompting Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings to grant Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment in its entirety. Final judgment was entered against each defaulting defendant in the amount of up to $50,000, consistent with statutory damages available for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
The rapid resolution is consistent with the N.D. Illinois Schedule A enforcement model, where plaintiffs leverage TROs, asset freezes, and service via electronic means to obtain swift relief against anonymous marketplace sellers. The public record does not disclose the identity of individual defendants, the precise number of sellers named, or whether any monetary awards have been collected — leaving the practical enforcement outcome uncertain.
Filing to Default Judgment in 112 days
112 days — faster than the median Schedule A design patent case in N.D. Ill.
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: no defense filed, plaintiff wins by operation of law
A default judgment is entered when a named defendant fails to appear or respond within the required period. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and proceeds to determine appropriate relief. Here, Judge Cummings granted the motion in its entirety, meaning each seller on Schedule A who failed to appear is bound by the final judgment and the damages award — without any merits adjudication.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) defaultPatent holder secures enforceable judgment without trial
Shenzhen Kunshengze obtained a final, enforceable judgment without the cost or delay of litigation on the merits. The up-to-$50,000 award per defendant aligns with the statutory damages ceiling for design patent infringement. The plaintiff can now pursue enforcement actions — including marketplace takedowns, payment processor freezes, and collection against any identified assets — based on the entered judgment.
Enforceable final judgmentNon-appearing sellers face $50,000 judgment with limited appeal options
Defendants who failed to appear forfeited their right to contest infringement or challenge the validity of USD0980990S. While a defaulting party may move to vacate a default judgment under Rule 60(b) on narrow grounds — such as excusable neglect or lack of notice — that bar is high. Each defendant on the Schedule A table is now subject to up to $50,000 in damages plus any injunctive or asset-related relief ordered by the court.
High bar to vacate judgmentSchedule A model reinforces design patent enforcement against marketplace sellers
This case reflects the growing use of the Schedule A enforcement strategy in N.D. Illinois, where design patent holders pursue anonymous e-commerce infringers en masse. The swift 112-day default cycle creates a template others may replicate. For marketplace sellers — particularly those sourcing products through China-based supply chains — this signals that non-response carries automatic, significant financial consequences even when the plaintiff is itself a Chinese entity.
E-commerce design patent riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese e-commerce company — holder of ornamental design patent USD0980990SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified collectively on Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Depeng Bi | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Konrad Val Sherinian | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeffrey I Cummings | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granting default judgment ‘in its entirety’ indicates that Judge Cummings accepted all of Plaintiff’s pleaded allegations as admitted by virtue of the defendants’ non-appearance. The ‘up to $50,000’ formulation per defendant reflects the statutory damages cap under 35 U.S.C. § 289 for design patent infringement — not a per-article calculation. The attached table structure suggests individualized determinations per defendant, though the public docket does not disclose how many sellers were ultimately adjudged or whether any defendants were later dismissed.
USD0980990S — Ornamental design patent, consumer product e-commerce
USD0980990S (filed under application number US29/814406) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a specific consumer product. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture. Unlike utility patents, design patents have a comparatively narrow but highly specific scope — infringement is assessed by the ‘ordinary observer’ test, asking whether an ordinary purchaser would mistake the accused design for the patented one.
In the e-commerce enforcement context, design patents like USD0980990S carry significant strategic value: they are relatively inexpensive to obtain, difficult for marketplace sellers to design around without visible product changes, and capable of supporting both injunctive relief and statutory damages. The patent’s application number (US29/814406) places it in the Design Patent series at the USPTO. Competitors and marketplace sellers offering visually similar products in the same category face direct infringement risk even absent any copying of technical functionality.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD0980990S?
Any company sourcing, manufacturing, or listing ornamental consumer goods on U.S. e-commerce platforms — particularly Amazon, Walmart, or eBay — should assess whether their product’s visual design falls within the scope of USD0980990S. The ordinary observer test means that even minor visual resemblance can trigger infringement exposure. Given that this patent was actively enforced in federal court, it is not dormant IP. R&D and procurement teams should review product aesthetics before U.S. market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product teams to run design patent clearance searches against USD0980990S and related USPTO design filings. Eureka maps visual similarity, identifies design-around opportunities, and flags co-pending applications in the same design family — giving you an evidence-based clearance opinion before listing or manufacturing at scale.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0980990S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving design patent infringement actions against anonymous Schedule A marketplace defendants in the Northern District of Illinois federal court.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent IP landscape
Default judgments in Schedule A cases are reshaping how design patents are enforced against anonymous online sellers globally.
N.D. Illinois remains the dominant venue for Schedule A design patent enforcement
The Northern District of Illinois has become the de facto hub for Schedule A actions targeting anonymous marketplace sellers. Its procedural infrastructure — including ex parte TROs and electronic service — enables plaintiffs to reach defaulting defendants rapidly. IP teams monitoring e-commerce exposure should track this docket closely.
Design patent holders can obtain $50K per defendant without a merits fight
The default judgment mechanism under 35 U.S.C. § 289 allows design patent holders to recover up to $50,000 per infringer without proving lost profits or actual damages. For portfolio holders with registered ornamental designs, this creates a cost-effective enforcement path — particularly where defendants are unlikely to appear and contest.
Shenzhen v Partnerships — key questions answered
A Schedule A case is a patent enforcement action filed against multiple anonymous online sellers, identified by a confidential schedule attached to the complaint rather than named individually. In Case No. 1:24-cv-05783, Shenzhen Kunshengze filed in N.D. Illinois against marketplace sellers allegedly infringing design patent USD0980990S. None of the defendants appeared, and the court entered default judgment of up to $50,000 per defendant within 112 days.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent holder may elect to recover the infringer’s total profit from the sale of any article to which the patented design has been applied, with a statutory floor of $250. In Schedule A default judgment cases, courts commonly award up to $50,000 per defendant as a proxy for statutory damages where actual sales data is unavailable due to defendants’ non-appearance.
Yes, but the standard is demanding. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a defaulting defendant may seek relief on grounds such as excusable neglect, lack of proper notice, or a meritorious defense. Courts consider whether the defendant has a colorable invalidity or non-infringement argument. In practice, most Schedule A defendants do not move to vacate, and those who do face scrutiny over why they failed to respond initially.
Infringement of a U.S. design patent is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2008). A factfinder asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into thinking the accused design is the same as the patented design. Because USD0980990S protects an ornamental design, non-functional visual differences are the primary analytical focus.
N.D. Illinois has developed procedural infrastructure well-suited to Schedule A enforcement: judges in the district are experienced with ex parte TRO motions, electronic service on foreign defendants via marketplace platforms or email, and sealed filings to prevent asset dissipation. This combination allows plaintiffs to obtain injunctions and asset freezes quickly before defendants can withdraw marketplace funds, making it the dominant venue for this enforcement model.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.