Kunshengze v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in Finger Stretcher Design Patent Case
Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. secured a default judgment in just 92 days against over 100 e-commerce marketplace sellers accused of infringing U.S. Design Patent D980,990, which protects the ornamental appearance of a finger stretcher device. Not a single defendant appeared or answered the complaint.
Mass default judgment in a Schedule A e-commerce design patent sweep
Filed on November 27, 2023 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Manish S. Shah, this case represents a classic ‘Schedule A’ enforcement action. Plaintiff Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. — itself a Chinese e-commerce company — asserted U.S. Design Patent No. D980,990, covering the ornamental design of a finger stretcher, against more than 100 online marketplace sellers operating under pseudonymous seller aliases.
The case closed on February 27, 2024 when the court granted Kunshengze’s motion for default judgment. Because none of the named defendants answered, appeared, or filed any pleading within the required period after proper service, the court deemed all allegations in the complaint admitted. The court had also previously entered a temporary restraining order that was extended pending adjudication of a preliminary injunction motion, suggesting Kunshengze likely secured interim asset freezes or platform takedowns.
The 92-day resolution is consistent with the typical trajectory of uncontested Schedule A design patent cases, where mass default judgments are frequently obtained when no defendant responds. What remains unknown from the public record is the monetary relief awarded — including any damages figure or injunctive terms — as well as whether any defendants were subsequently dismissed or settled privately before the default judgment issued.
Filing to settlement in 92 days
92 days — faster than most Schedule A multi-defendant patent cases
Default judgment granted: what it means for both sides
Default judgment: allegations admitted by silence
When defendants fail to answer or appear after proper service, a court may enter default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Here, the court found all defaulting defendants had been served more than 21 days prior and had not responded. The legal effect is that every factual allegation in Kunshengze’s complaint is deemed admitted — including the infringement claim itself — without the plaintiff needing to prove its case at trial.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 defaultElectronic service accepted as constitutionally adequate notice
The court accepted service via electronic publication or email, combined with notices from payment processors, as constitutionally sufficient under the due process standard — notice ‘reasonably calculated’ to apprise defendants of the action. This is a standard feature of Schedule A cases targeting anonymous overseas e-commerce sellers, and reflects how courts have adapted service rules to online marketplace enforcement.
Electronic service approvedPersonal jurisdiction grounded in targeting Illinois consumers
The Northern District of Illinois asserted personal jurisdiction on the basis that each defendant operated interactive e-commerce storefronts accessible to — and used by — Illinois residents, with U.S. shipping enabled. The court found that screenshot evidence submitted by Kunshengze was sufficient to establish purposeful targeting of Illinois consumers, a standard approach in multi-defendant Schedule A design patent actions filed in this district.
Illinois consumer targetingTRO suggests interim asset freeze or platform delisting was sought
The court had previously entered a TRO — extended until the preliminary injunction motion was adjudicated — which in Schedule A actions typically accompanies orders directing platforms such as Amazon, Alibaba, or eBay to freeze seller accounts or withhold funds. The public record does not confirm whether such orders were executed, but the combination of TRO and default judgment is consistent with a strategy aimed at financial disruption of infringing storefronts.
TRO + default judgment comboFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese e-commerce company — holder of U.S. Design Patent D980,990 (finger stretcher)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Company | 100+ pseudonymous online marketplace sellers operating e-commerce storefronts targeting U.S. consumersSearch 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Manish S. Shah | Chief Judge | Illinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The default judgment order is notable for its breadth and procedural efficiency. The court’s finding that allegations are ‘uncontroverted and deemed admitted’ means Kunshengze established infringement of D980,990 without a merits hearing. The extended TRO signals that financial relief — not merely injunctive removal — was likely sought. For the defaulting defendants, the judgment leaves them exposed to damages and potentially permanent injunctions without any opportunity to contest validity or non-infringement.
U.S. Design Patent D980,990 — Ornamental Finger Stretcher Design
U.S. Design Patent No. D980,990, filed under application number 29/814,406, protects the ornamental design of a finger stretcher — a hand rehabilitation and exercise device used for improving finger flexibility, strength, and recovery. Design patents protect the visual appearance of a product rather than its functional attributes, meaning the scope of protection is defined by the drawings filed with the USPTO. The patent was asserted as the ‘Kunshengze Design’ by the plaintiff in this enforcement action.
In the competitive Amazon and AliExpress marketplace landscape, ornamental design patents on high-volume consumer health accessories carry significant enforcement leverage. Because the infringement test for design patents is whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design, sellers offering visually comparable finger stretcher products face real exposure — even absent any functional copying. The breadth of defendants named in this action, exceeding 100 seller aliases, suggests the design is prevalent across multiple e-commerce platforms.
Should your team run an FTO against U.S. Design Patent D980,990?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling finger stretchers, hand rehabilitation devices, or visually similar grip exercise accessories in the U.S. market should treat D980,990 as a live enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is willing and able to pursue mass enforcement through the U.S. court system. Product teams planning new SKUs in the hand therapy category, or existing sellers on Amazon and similar platforms, should assess ornamental similarity before launch or continued listing.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product teams to run rapid freedom-to-operate assessments against U.S. design patent databases, including D980,990 and related filings by Kunshengze. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools can also alert your team if new design patents are filed in adjacent product categories — giving early warning before a Schedule A complaint is filed against your storefront.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0980990S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in N.D. Illinois e-commerce enforcement
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent enforcement landscape
Schedule A design patent sweeps are accelerating. This case illustrates how overseas IP holders are now using U.S. courts offensively.
Chinese IP holders are increasingly Schedule A plaintiffs, not just defendants
Kunshengze’s enforcement action inverts the typical narrative of U.S. rights holders pursuing Chinese counterfeiters. Chinese e-commerce companies with registered U.S. design patents are now actively using the Northern District of Illinois Schedule A playbook against rival marketplace sellers — including other Chinese-origin storefronts. This trend suggests U.S. design patent registration is becoming a competitive weapon in the Amazon marketplace ecosystem.
Design patent D980,990 covers a low-cost consumer product with high copy risk
Finger stretcher and hand rehabilitation devices are high-volume, low-cost goods sold across Amazon, AliExpress, and Temu by hundreds of sellers. Ornamental design patents on such products are particularly potent enforcement tools because visual similarity — not functional identity — is the infringement standard. Any seller offering a visually similar finger stretcher is potentially exposed, regardless of differences in material or mechanism.
Shenzhen v The — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois granted Kunshengze’s motion for default judgment on February 27, 2024, approximately 92 days after filing. All named defendants failed to appear or answer, and the court deemed the infringement allegations admitted. The case is closed.
U.S. Design Patent No. D980,990, application number 29/814,406, covering the ornamental design of a finger stretcher device. Design patents protect visual appearance, so infringement is assessed by whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product substantially similar to the patented design.
A Schedule A case names multiple anonymous e-commerce sellers — identified by seller aliases rather than legal names — in a single complaint. The Northern District of Illinois is the most popular venue for such cases due to its receptiveness to electronic service, TROs, and default judgments against overseas marketplace sellers. Kunshengze’s filing follows a well-established enforcement playbook used in this district.
The court found personal jurisdiction based on evidence that each defendant operated interactive online storefronts accessible to Illinois consumers, offered U.S. shipping, and had made sales to Illinois residents. Screenshot evidence submitted by Kunshengze supported the finding that defendants purposefully targeted the Illinois market.
Default judgment means all factual allegations — including design patent infringement — are deemed admitted by the defendants’ failure to respond. Defendants are typically subject to permanent injunctions and damages awards. Combined with the prior TRO, this suggests account freezes or payment holds may have been in effect. Defendants lose the ability to contest patent validity or non-infringement without moving to vacate the judgment.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.