Shenzhen Qinyi v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Reversible Plush Toy Design Patent
Shenzhen Qinyi Technologies secured a default judgment against 28 Chinese e-commerce sellers operating on Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Etsy, SHEIN, and AliExpress for infringing U.S. Design Patent D1,034,847 covering egg bunny reversible plush toys. The case resolved in 91 days with total profit awards, a permanent injunction, and immediate asset restraint across third-party platforms.
E-commerce design patent enforcement secures swift default victory
Shenzhen Qinyi Technologies Co., Ltd. filed suit on July 22, 2025, in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., asserting that 28 online marketplace sellers infringed U.S. Design Patent No. D1,034,847, which protects the ornamental design of a reversible plush toy — specifically an egg bunny plushie. Defendants operated seller aliases across major platforms including Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Etsy, SHEIN, and AliExpress, and were served via electronic publication and e-mail consistent with Schedule A enforcement norms.
None of the 28 named defendants answered the complaint within the prescribed time. On October 21, 2025 — just 91 days after filing — the court granted default judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 289, awarding plaintiff profits from each defaulting defendant’s infringing sales. Profit awards ranged from $250 to $8,113.08 per defendant. The court simultaneously issued a permanent injunction barring all infringing activity and ordered third-party platforms to freeze and release funds from defendants’ accounts within 14 calendar days.
The 91-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated pace typical of well-executed Schedule A campaigns in the Northern District of Illinois, which has become the preferred venue for design patent enforcement against e-commerce counterfeiters. The swift default likely reflects defendants’ inability or unwillingness to engage U.S. litigation, a pattern common among smaller Chinese marketplace sellers. The public record does not reveal whether any defendants were separately dismissed prior to judgment or whether post-judgment asset recovery was fully satisfied.
Filing to Default Judgment in 91 days
91 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the typical Schedule A enforcement timeline
Default judgment granted: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: what it means when no defendant answers
When defendants fail to respond to a properly served complaint, the court may enter default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. All factual allegations in the complaint are deemed admitted. Here, the court found service via electronic publication and e-mail sufficient under the circumstances, a standard approach in Schedule A cases. The plaintiff’s design patent infringement claim under 35 U.S.C. § 271 was accepted as uncontroverted.
Uncontested record admittedPlaintiff wins permanent injunction and disgorgement of profits
Shenzhen Qinyi secured a permanent injunction blocking all 28 defendants from any further use, sale, or distribution of products bearing the design patent. Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, design patent holders may elect to recover the infringer’s total profits — not just reasonable royalty — from the sale of infringing articles. The court ordered third-party platforms to freeze and release defendants’ account funds within 14 days, providing a direct collection mechanism without further litigation.
§289 profit disgorgement awarded28 sellers face permanent ban and immediate account asset seizure
All 28 defaulting defendants are permanently enjoined from selling infringing reversible plush toys across any online marketplace. Their seller accounts on Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Etsy, SHEIN, and AliExpress are subject to immediate disabling. Funds held by those platforms up to each defendant’s damages award are ordered released to the plaintiff. Defendants who did not appear forfeited any ability to contest the profit figures or challenge service validity at this stage.
Accounts frozen and closedDesign patent enforcement via Schedule A remains a potent deterrent
This case reinforces the Northern District of Illinois as the leading venue for design patent Schedule A actions. The combination of electronic service, preliminary injunction bond, asset freeze, and 35 U.S.C. § 289 profit disgorgement creates substantial financial exposure for marketplace sellers of infringing novelty or plush toy products. Competing sellers of reversible plush designs — particularly those sourcing from Chinese manufacturers — should treat active enforcement campaigns in this district as a material commercial risk.
High-risk venue for e-commerce sellersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Qinyi Technologies Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer goods manufacturer — holder of U.S. Design Patent D1,034,847Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | 28 unnamed e-commerce sellers on Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Etsy, SHEIN, and AliExpressSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Faye Yifei Deng | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Qinyi Technologies Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | YK Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Qinyi Technologies Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order represents a complete plaintiff victory on an uncontested record. Because no defendant appeared, the court accepted the complaint’s allegations as admitted and applied 35 U.S.C. § 289 to award disgorgement of each defendant’s profits without a contested damages proceeding. The permanent injunction and asset-freeze provisions impose immediate, platform-enforced consequences. The awards ranging from $250 to $8,113 per defendant suggest courts will accept plaintiff-submitted profit evidence at default stage without adversarial scrutiny.
USD1034847S — Reversible Plush Toy Ornamental Design
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,034,847 (Application No. 29/889,299) protects the ornamental design of a reversible plush toy — specifically the egg bunny plushie form. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, original, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, not its functional attributes. Protection attaches to the visual design as shown in the patent’s drawings. The application number 29/889,299 follows the standard USPTO design patent numbering convention, and the D-prefix registration indicates issuance as a design patent.
Reversible plush toys — particularly animal-character designs that flip between two forms — have become a high-velocity SKU category on global e-commerce platforms. A design patent on a distinctive reversible plushie form creates a broad surface for enforcement against visually similar competing products. For toy manufacturers and importers, this patent signals that ornamental design IP is being actively monetised against marketplace sellers, and that close visual similarity to the registered design is sufficient to support infringement claims under the ordinary observer test.
Should you run an FTO against USD1034847S?
Any company designing, importing, or selling reversible plush toys — particularly egg-shaped or bunny-form plushies — for the U.S. market should assess freedom-to-operate against D1,034,847. This is especially urgent for sellers active on Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Etsy, SHEIN, or AliExpress, given that this judgment specifically names those platforms as enforcement targets. Even sellers who believe their design is visually distinct should verify that distinction under the ordinary observer standard before listing.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of D1,034,847 against your product’s design, identify design-around opportunities, and surface related design patent filings by Shenzhen Qinyi or related entities. Eureka can also flag active Schedule A cases in the Northern District of Illinois that may implicate overlapping product categories, allowing product and IP teams to assess portfolio-level exposure before a marketplace listing goes live.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1034847S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases — plush toys and novelty goods
Cases below involve design patent enforcement against e-commerce marketplace sellers in the Northern District of Illinois, covering comparable novelty and plush toy product categories.
What this case signals for the plush toy and e-commerce IP landscape
Design patent holders are using Schedule A enforcement to rapidly shut down multi-seller infringement rings on global e-commerce platforms.
Northern District of Illinois is the go-to venue for Schedule A design actions
The court’s willingness to accept electronic service, enter preliminary injunctions, and issue asset-freeze orders against dozens of defendants simultaneously makes this district uniquely efficient for design patent holders targeting marketplace sellers. IP teams monitoring novelty toy competitors should track Schedule A filings here as an early warning system.
Section 289 profit disgorgement amplifies financial risk for design infringers
Unlike utility patent damages, 35 U.S.C. § 289 allows design patent holders to claim the infringer’s total article profits — not apportioned royalties. For marketplace sellers with significant revenue from a single infringing SKU, this can produce damages far exceeding typical royalty calculations. This case demonstrates courts will apply § 289 on a default record without a damages trial.
Shenzhen v Partnerships — key questions answered
U.S. Design Patent D1,034,847 (Application No. 29/889,299) protects the ornamental design of a reversible plush toy — specifically an egg bunny plushie — owned by Shenzhen Qinyi Technologies Co., Ltd. It was the sole patent asserted in Case No. 1:25-cv-08416 in the Northern District of Illinois.
The court found service via electronic publication and e-mail to be reasonably calculated to provide notice under the circumstances, consistent with standard Schedule A enforcement practice in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants also received notice from payment processors. No defendant challenged service or appeared in the action.
The court awarded disgorgement of each defaulting defendant’s profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which permits recovery of the infringer’s total profits from infringing article sales. Awards ranged from $250 (minimum award for several defendants) to $8,113.08 for the highest-revenue seller, JIAXINHEHE. Total awarded profits across all 28 defendants are reflected in the Schedule A chart in the judgment.
The court’s asset freeze and fund-release order covered Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Etsy, SHEIN, and AliExpress, as well as any other third-party platforms holding funds connected to the defaulting defendants. Platforms were required to freeze and remit funds within 7–14 calendar days of receiving the order.
The $38,000 cash bond was posted by Shenzhen Qinyi as security for the preliminary injunction granted earlier in the case. Upon entry of final default judgment, the court ordered the bond — plus any applicable interest — returned to plaintiff or its counsel, YK Law LLP. The bond release confirms the preliminary injunction stage is concluded and the enforcement posture has shifted to final judgment collection.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.