Shenzhen Kunshengze v. Schedule A Defendants: $276K Judgment in Finger Stretcher Design Patent Case
Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. sued more than 80 online marketplace sellers for infringing its US design patent USD980990S covering a finger stretcher device. Judge Valderrama in the Northern District of Illinois entered judgment on the merits for the plaintiff, awarding $276,301.14 across the defendant group in a case resolved in just 396 days.
Design Patent Enforcement Against Gray-Market Marketplace Sellers
Filed on 22 April 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois, this case pits Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. — a China-based e-commerce company — against a sprawling Schedule A defendant list of more than 80 unincorporated online sellers. The single patent in suit, USD980990S (application number US29/814406), protects the ornamental design of a finger stretcher, a compact therapeutic and exercise device sold extensively through Amazon and similar platforms. The plaintiff was represented by The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC, a firm specialising in Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions.
The case closed on 23 May 2025 with a merits judgment in favour of Shenzhen Kunshengze, with the court awarding $276,301.14 against the defendant group collectively. Judgment on the merits — as opposed to a voluntary dismissal or settlement — indicates the court assessed the infringement claims substantively and found them proven to the requisite standard. For the defendants who did not appear or contest, this outcome likely reflects default or default judgment proceedings, which are common in Schedule A actions where many sellers fail to respond.
At 396 days from filing to close, the case moved at a pace consistent with aggressively prosecuted Schedule A actions in the Northern District, where early TRO motions and asset freezes frequently accelerate resolution. The public record does not disclose the breakdown of damages across individual defendants, nor whether all 80-plus named parties were ultimately subject to the judgment. What remains notable is that the plaintiff, itself a Chinese e-commerce seller, deployed US design patent rights offensively against competitor sellers — a pattern increasingly common on platforms such as Amazon.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 396 days
396 days — faster than the N.D. Illinois median for multi-defendant IP cases
Judgment on the merits: what the $276K ruling means for both sides
Merits judgment — not a settlement or default in name only
A judgment on the merits signals that the court evaluated the substance of the infringement claims under the design patent standard — ordinary observer test — rather than terminating on procedural grounds. In Schedule A cases, this frequently follows default judgment proceedings where non-appearing defendants are deemed to have admitted the well-pleaded allegations. The $276,301.14 award is consistent with statutory damages available under 35 U.S.C. § 289 for design patent infringement.
Merits adjudicationPlaintiff secures enforceable monetary judgment and precedent
Shenzhen Kunshengze now holds a federal court judgment it can use to enforce against infringing sellers’ assets — including funds held in marketplace escrow accounts, which courts in this district have routinely ordered frozen in Schedule A actions. The merits finding reinforces the validity and enforceability of USD980990S, raising the cost for any future challenger to design-around or invalidate the patent in subsequent proceedings.
Judgment enforceable80+ sellers face joint judgment and potential asset seizure
Defendants who failed to appear or contest face the full force of the judgment, including potential attachment of marketplace account balances. The public record does not individually allocate the $276,301.14, suggesting either a joint award or aggregated statutory damages. Sellers who did participate but lost retain the option to appeal, though the window is narrow and the cost-benefit calculus is typically unfavourable given the per-defendant amounts involved.
Assets at riskDesign patent weaponisation by Chinese sellers is accelerating
This case exemplifies a structural shift: China-based sellers are no longer only defendants in US IP litigation — they are increasingly plaintiffs, using US design patents to clear competitor listings from Amazon and similar platforms. For any company selling finger stretchers, hand exercise devices, or adjacent therapeutic products on US marketplaces, this judgment signals a need for proactive FTO analysis against design patents held by Chinese e-commerce entities.
Marketplace IP riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. | Company | China-based e-commerce seller — holder of USD980990S finger stretcher design patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships And Unicorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A | Individual | 80+ unincorporated online marketplace sellers identified on Schedule A across multiple platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Dear Baby Store | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | jinribaofu | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others too numerous to list: SSFMY-kkbai0nniiiilanmom, B.LIDELIN02, dinganxiaqiaminshangmaoyouxiangongsi, MXJ-XIEWENHU, LunWeishangmao, D&N Classics, kunmingrongceshangmaoyouxiangongsi, Ailisidun923, Wshih, xiaoxiaokuajing, MAKESCARD TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, YANZHIDI, NatChrisa, Findhome, yongjihangubaihuoshanghang, Jeree Global, Shengyao Store, nanyangshiqifengwangluokejiyouxiangongsi, huixing1, decaihuashangss-RC, youguansheng, ZHAN DI Store, clxwhjdzswsh, zhenpingxianchaojidadeyijiashaomaodian, Matanza, ChuNC, KNATILELLC, huaibeimaokaishangmaoyouxiangongsia, dangshankebandianzishangwuyouxiangongsiwjj, zhengzhoujiboxinxikejiyouxiangongsi, KMD Tech LLC, HSSUN, amzon-US, AN KUAI Store, tangyingjiannannvzhuang, Jack Lure, My Ideal Store, xingtaishannuanwenhuachuanboyouxiangongsi, shanhaiqiye, US ASPIRE DEALS, A good luck shop, zhunBENshangMAOyouxiangongsi, kunmingboyubaihuoyouxiangongsichenyongnan, Luludianmzishangwu, state storm, yongjilimeibaihuoshanghang, A Good shop, dinganniaoduanshangmaoyouxiangongsi, GadgetBucketin, MPM Gifts, ZhiWangShangMao, JiMingCheng, HPIJU, Yongji Road Department Store Co., Ltd, SZLP, SSFMY-kkbai0nniiilanmom, PEAKZ, kunmingyezhengguojimaoyiyouxiangongsi, Gao Jianglong’s store, VLls, zhangqinlu0926, QTZFKFLHD, WYOCKS, Rohbaughkj, SportLovers, ATHNAZIUM, We outside, bowanyuyiyouxiangongsi, Jaysanter, Meijiawann, kunminggumanshangmaohang, onesame, tzx3455, kunminghanlimaoyishanghang, yanshihao-us, B.genmai001-us, guankedianzi-RC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | pingdinganchangshangmaoyouxiangongsi | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | QIKANG-US | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | suhuamaoyiyouxiangongsiguangzhou | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | TIAODAO | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | VitalTronic | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Wangchacha’s Warehouse | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | xiangdongshangmaoyouxiangong | Individual | Search 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 Franklin U. Valderrama | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict — ‘in favor of plaintiff Shenzhen Kunshengze and against defendant The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations in the amount of $276,301.14’ — is a merits judgment, not a procedural termination. The aggregate award against a Schedule A defendant group is consistent with statutory damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which permits recovery of a defendant’s total profit on an infringing design article. The collective framing of the award suggests the court assessed damages at the group level, which is typical where individual defendant sales data is limited or defendants have defaulted. The judgment creates an enforceable federal court order, enabling the plaintiff to pursue marketplace account funds held in escrow.
USD980990S — Ornamental Design for a Finger Stretcher Device
USD980990S (filed under application number US29/814406) is a US design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a finger stretcher — a compact device used for finger rehabilitation, strength training, and flexibility exercise. Design patents protect the visual characteristics of an article of manufacture, not its functional operation. The patent’s value lies entirely in its ornamental scope: any competing product that presents a substantially similar appearance to an ordinary observer, given the prior art, may be found to infringe. Design patents in the consumer health and fitness device space have become a common tool for marketplace sellers seeking to differentiate their listings and exclude visual copycats.
USD980990S is strategically significant because finger stretcher and hand exerciser products are commoditised on Amazon, with dozens of visually similar listings competing at low price points. A design patent in this context functions less as a traditional IP right protecting innovation and more as a marketplace enforcement tool — allowing the holder to challenge competitor ASINs via court order or Amazon’s IP complaint mechanism. For any company developing or listing finger rehabilitation products in the US market, this patent represents a concrete design-around obligation, particularly given that the plaintiff has now demonstrated willingness and capacity to litigate aggressively through to a merits judgment.
Should your team run an FTO check against USD980990S?
If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or sells finger stretchers, hand exercisers, ring-style resistance trainers, or adjacent therapeutic grip devices for the US market — particularly through Amazon or other third-party marketplaces — USD980990S should be on your FTO watchlist. This case confirms that the patent holder will pursue enforcement action in the Northern District of Illinois, a court with an established Schedule A pipeline and a track record of granting early asset freezes. The risk is not abstract: marketplace account suspension can occur within days of a TRO application.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental claim scope of USD980990S against your product’s visual design, identify prior art that may constrain the patent’s effective scope, and flag design-around opportunities before you list. Eureka can also monitor the plaintiff’s broader US design patent portfolio — Shenzhen Kunshengze may hold or acquire additional design rights in adjacent product categories. Setting up a portfolio watch alert takes minutes and can prevent costly marketplace disruption.
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
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent enforcement actions against online marketplace sellers litigated in the Northern District of Illinois federal court.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent IP landscape
Schedule A design patent enforcement is intensifying. Chinese-owned US design patents are now an active offensive weapon against marketplace competitors.
Chinese e-commerce plaintiffs are increasingly wielding US design patents offensively
Shenzhen Kunshengze’s successful enforcement of USD980990S illustrates a growing pattern: Chinese sellers acquiring US design patents and using Schedule A litigation in N.D. Illinois to suppress competitor listings. Any seller in the health, fitness, or therapeutic device space on Amazon should audit their product portfolio for exposure to Chinese-held US design patents.
N.D. Illinois Schedule A actions resolve quickly — asset freezes are the real threat
At 396 days, this case closed faster than most contested IP matters. The real commercial risk in Schedule A actions is not the trial — it is the early TRO and asset freeze that can suspend marketplace accounts within days of filing. Companies operating multi-SKU Amazon stores should have a rapid-response protocol for IP enforcement notices and TRO applications.
Shenzhen v Partnerships — key questions answered
USD980990S is a US design patent (application no. US29/814406) protecting the ornamental design of a finger stretcher device. In Case No. 1:24-cv-03201, Shenzhen Kunshengze asserted this patent against 80+ online sellers in N.D. Illinois, alleging that their competing finger stretcher listings infringed the patent’s ornamental appearance under the ordinary observer test.
The public record does not disclose the per-defendant damages breakdown. In Schedule A design patent cases, courts typically apply 35 U.S.C. § 289, which entitles a patent holder to the infringer’s total profits on the infringing article. Where defendants default, courts generally rely on plaintiff-submitted sales evidence to establish the damages figure. The aggregate award of $276,301.14 is consistent with statutory damages across a large defendant group.
Judgment on the merits means the court evaluated the substance of the infringement claim — not merely procedural grounds — and found in favour of the plaintiff. In Schedule A cases with non-appearing defendants, this typically takes the form of default judgment after the court accepts plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as admitted. It results in an enforceable federal monetary judgment that can be used to attach marketplace account funds.
Defendants subject to a merits judgment retain the right to appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. However, defaulting defendants generally have a high bar: they must first seek to vacate the default judgment in the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), showing good cause for their failure to appear. Given the typically small per-defendant amounts in Schedule A cases, the economics of appeal are usually unfavourable.
Schedule A lawsuits target groups of anonymous or pseudonymous online sellers — often identified only by storefront names — who are alleged to sell infringing goods on platforms like Amazon. Plaintiffs file a single action against dozens or hundreds of sellers, seeking TROs and asset freezes. N.D. Illinois is a preferred venue because its courts have developed streamlined procedures for Schedule A IP enforcement, including expedited TRO hearings and orders to freeze marketplace escrow accounts.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.