Shenzhen Yixun v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in VR Accessories Design Patent Case
Shenzhen Yixun Technology Co., Ltd. brought a design patent infringement action against anonymous online marketplace sellers over virtual reality accessories protected by USD1004574S. With no defendants appearing to contest the claims, the court entered default judgment within 126 days of filing — a swift resolution consistent with Schedule A enforcement campaigns.
VR accessory design patent enforced via Schedule A marketplace sweep
On June 27, 2024, Shenzhen Yixun Technology Co., Ltd. filed suit in the Illinois Northern District Court (Case No. 1:24-cv-05410) against a group of anonymous defendants operating online marketplace storefronts, identified only through Schedule A. The asserted patent is USD1004574S (application number US29/823338), a design patent covering virtual reality accessories sold under the Yixun brand. Judge Mary M. Rowland presided over the matter.
None of the named Defaulting Defendants answered, entered an appearance, or otherwise contested the allegations. Yixun moved for entry of default and default judgment, having served defendants via a combination of electronic publication, e-mail, and payment processor notice — a service method the court found reasonably calculated to apprise defendants of the pending action. Default judgment was entered on October 31, 2024, with the uncontroverted complaint allegations deemed admitted.
The 126-day resolution is notably swift, even within the expedited Schedule A enforcement genre, suggesting no procedural complications arose following filing. The public record does not disclose the specific monetary relief or injunctive scope awarded under the default judgment, nor does it identify the individual defendants or the specific marketplace platforms at issue, as those details are typically sealed or redacted in Schedule A matters.
Filing to Default Judgment in 126 days
126 days — faster than the typical Schedule A default timeline of 150–180 days
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: uncontested allegations deemed admitted
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to answer or appear within the required timeframe. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, the court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint allegations as admitted. Here, the court found service via electronic publication, e-mail, and payment processor notice was constitutionally sufficient — a standard approach in Schedule A cases targeting pseudonymous online sellers.
Rule 55 default judgmentYixun secures enforceable judgment without merits contest
Shenzhen Yixun obtained a default judgment with design patent infringement allegations deemed admitted as a matter of law. This typically enables the plaintiff to seek injunctive relief blocking infringing storefronts and claim statutory or actual damages. Critically, the patent’s validity was never adjudicated on the merits — meaning USD1004574S remains unchallenged and fully enforceable against future infringers.
Enforceable design patentDefaulting sellers face judgment without opportunity to contest
Defendants who fail to appear in a Schedule A action forfeit their right to contest infringement, challenge patent validity, or dispute damages. The resulting judgment can be used to freeze payment processor accounts, remove marketplace listings, and collect damages. Any defendant wishing to vacate the default would need to show good cause under Rule 55(c) — a high bar absent a compelling excuse for non-appearance.
No validity challenge possibleSchedule A tactics remain effective for VR accessory design enforcement
This outcome is consistent with the broader use of Illinois federal courts as a preferred venue for Schedule A design patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers. The swift 126-day timeline and absence of any defendant opposition suggests Yixun’s enforcement strategy was well-executed. Competing VR accessory sellers operating on major online marketplaces should note that USD1004574S is now backed by an active default judgment — elevating enforcement risk.
E-commerce enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SHENZHEN YIXUN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. | Company | Chinese consumer electronics manufacturer — holder of design patent USD1004574S covering VR accessoriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers operating storefronts listed on Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Depeng Bi | Attorney | Counsel for SHENZHEN YIXUN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Konrad Val Sherinian | Attorney | Counsel for SHENZHEN YIXUN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LL | Law Firm | Representing SHENZHEN YIXUN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Mary M. Rowland | Judge | Illinois Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order reflects the court’s acceptance of Yixun’s uncontroverted complaint allegations as admitted, consistent with Rule 55(b) practice. The court’s explicit finding that electronic publication and e-mail service — supplemented by payment processor notification — satisfies due process is significant: it ratifies the service methodology increasingly used in Schedule A campaigns. The public record does not disclose the specific monetary or injunctive relief awarded, which is common where Schedule A judgments are entered against pseudonymous defendants.
USD1004574S — Virtual reality accessories ornamental design
USD1004574S, filed under application number US29/823338, is a US design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of virtual reality accessories sold by Shenzhen Yixun Technology Co., Ltd. Design patents in the US protect non-functional, aesthetic aspects of a product — the scope of protection is defined entirely by the figures in the patent drawings. The application number prefix ’29/’ confirms this is a design patent application under 35 U.S.C. § 171, distinct from utility patents covering functional innovations.
Design patents in the consumer electronics and VR accessory space have become increasingly valuable enforcement tools, particularly against e-commerce sellers who copy product aesthetics for marketplace listings. USD1004574S, now backed by an unappealed default judgment, represents a commercially active IP asset. Competitors and OEM suppliers operating in the VR accessories category — particularly those selling on Amazon, Alibaba, or similar platforms — face elevated risk if their product designs overlap with the ornamental scope of Yixun’s registered design.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1004574S?
Any company designing, importing, or selling virtual reality accessories — including headset components, controllers, lens covers, and peripheral accessories — that could visually resemble the Yixun design should conduct a freedom-to-operate assessment against USD1004574S. The default judgment reinforces that Yixun is actively enforcing this patent. E-commerce sellers, OEM suppliers, and private-label brands operating in this space are particularly exposed, given the patent holder’s demonstrated willingness to pursue Schedule A campaigns.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the ornamental claim scope of USD1004574S against your product designs, identify prior art that could support a validity challenge, and surface related design patent families that may represent additional enforcement risk from the same assignee. R&D and product teams can use Eureka to run landscape analyses across VR accessory design filings and benchmark their designs before launch — reducing downstream litigation exposure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1004574S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent cases: VR accessories and Schedule A enforcement
Design patent infringement cases involving VR accessories and Schedule A anonymous defendants in Illinois federal courts, with comparable enforcement dynamics to Case No. 1:24-cv-05410.
What this case signals for the VR accessories IP enforcement landscape
Schedule A design patent actions continue to deliver rapid, low-friction outcomes for Chinese IP holders asserting rights against anonymous e-commerce sellers.
Illinois courts remain the venue of choice for Schedule A IP sweeps
The Northern District of Illinois has established familiarity with Schedule A enforcement mechanics — anonymous defendants, electronic service, and ex parte asset freezes. Plaintiffs filing here benefit from a well-worn procedural template. IP teams monitoring competitor enforcement activity should track Schedule A filings as a leading indicator of design patent assertion campaigns in consumer electronics.
Default judgments leave design patent validity wholly intact
Because no defendant challenged USD1004574S on the merits, the patent emerges from this litigation with no validity findings against it. Design patents that survive Schedule A campaigns without an IPR or validity challenge represent stronger enforcement assets for subsequent rounds of litigation. Competitors in the VR accessories space should assess whether any of their products could be captured by the patent’s ornamental scope.
SHENZHEN v Partnerships — key questions answered
The court entered default judgment in favour of plaintiff Shenzhen Yixun Technology Co., Ltd. on October 31, 2024. No defendant appeared or answered the complaint. The allegations of design patent infringement of USD1004574S were deemed admitted as uncontroverted.
The asserted patent is USD1004574S, a US design patent filed under application number US29/823338. It covers the ornamental design of virtual reality accessories. Design patents protect the non-functional aesthetic appearance of a product, with scope defined by the patent’s drawings.
A default judgment in a Schedule A action typically authorises the plaintiff to seek removal of infringing listings, freezing of payment processor accounts, and collection of damages. Sellers who did not appear cannot later contest infringement or validity without first moving to vacate the default under Rule 55(c), which requires showing good cause.
The validity of USD1004574S was never adjudicated on the merits. Because all defendants defaulted, the court accepted the infringement allegations as admitted without conducting a validity analysis. The patent therefore remains fully enforceable and unchallenged as a matter of litigation record.
The Northern District of Illinois has developed established procedural precedent for Schedule A cases — including electronic service on anonymous defendants, ex parte asset freeze orders, and expedited default judgment timelines. This familiarity makes it a preferred venue for IP holders, particularly those asserting design patents against pseudonymous e-commerce sellers.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.