Solawave Inc. v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment for Design Patent Infringement
Solawave Inc. secured a default judgment in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous online marketplace sellers infringing its facial wand design patent (USD1024350S). The court granted a permanent injunction and ordered disgorgement of defendants’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 — the case resolved in just 65 days from filing.
Solawave’s Design Patent Strike Against Anonymous Online Sellers
On January 7, 2025, Solawave Inc., a skincare technology company and holder of design patent USD1024350S covering its facial wand device, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against an anonymous group of online marketplace sellers identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ The case targeted sellers operating across major platforms including Amazon, eBay, Walmart, and Alibaba who were allegedly offering infringing facial wand products without authorisation.
The defendants never appeared or responded, and on March 13, 2025 — just 65 days after filing — Judge Jorge L. Alonso entered a default judgment in Solawave’s favour. The court found defendants liable for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and, applying the design patent-specific remedy of 35 U.S.C. § 289, awarded Solawave the total profits each defaulting defendant earned from sales of the infringing products. A permanent injunction was simultaneously issued barring defendants from any further sale, offering for sale, or importation of the infringing facial wand products.
The 65-day resolution reflects the predictable speed of Schedule A default proceedings where defendants, typically offshore anonymous sellers, do not engage with the litigation. What remains unknown from the public record is the aggregate monetary value of profits actually recovered, since individual per-defendant amounts are listed in a chart incorporated by reference and the degree to which third-party platforms successfully transferred restrained funds to Solawave has not been publicly confirmed.
Filing to Default Judgment in 65 days
65-day resolution — unusually swift even for a default judgment action
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Design patent disgorgement under § 289 — a powerful plaintiff remedy
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent holder may elect to recover the infringer’s total profits from sale of an infringing article — not merely reasonable royalty or lost profits. This is a notably plaintiff-favourable standard: the entire profit from each sale may be attributable to the patented design without the apportionment analysis required in utility patent cases. The Supreme Court confirmed this in Samsung v. Apple (2016), though ‘article of manufacture’ scope remains litigated.
§ 289 total profits remedySolawave secures injunction and full profit disgorgement
Solawave obtained the broadest available civil relief: a permanent injunction blocking all further sales, a freeze and transfer of defendants’ marketplace account funds, and the right to commence supplemental proceedings if defendants hold additional assets. Platform operators including Amazon, eBay, Walmart, Alibaba, and PayPal were directly ordered to disable accounts and release funds within seven to fourteen days — giving Solawave direct enforcement leverage without requiring further litigation steps.
Permanent injunction + funds seizureNon-appearance leads to maximum exposure for anonymous sellers
By failing to respond, the Schedule A defendants forfeited any opportunity to challenge the validity of USD1024350S, contest infringement, or limit damages. Default judgment in design patent Schedule A cases typically produces the harshest possible outcome — full profit disgorgement with no apportionment defence, permanent marketplace bans, and frozen financial accounts. Defendants retain theoretical rights to move to vacate the default, but success is rare absent compelling justification for non-appearance.
Full liability, no defence enteredSchedule A enforcement is now a core strategy for consumer product IP
This case illustrates the maturation of the ‘Schedule A’ enforcement model in the Northern District of Illinois, which has become the preferred venue for brand owners targeting anonymous e-commerce infringers. For consumer electronics and skincare device companies, the combination of a registered design patent, a TRO securing fund freezes, and rapid default judgment creates a commercially effective deterrent. Competitors and counterfeiters operating on major online marketplaces face accelerating risk from this enforcement template.
N.D. Ill. Schedule A enforcement modelFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Solawave Inc. | Company | Skincare technology brand — holder of design patent USD1024350S (facial wand)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers across Amazon, eBay, Walmart, and Alibaba platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin R. Gaudio | Attorney | Counsel for Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Tyler Joseph | Attorney | Counsel for Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lucas Allen Peterson | Attorney | Counsel for Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rachel S. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Trevor Christian Talhami | Attorney | Counsel for Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jorge L. Alonso | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s default judgment order makes an express finding of liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271 without conducting a full infringement analysis on the merits — a standard consequence of defendants’ non-appearance. The election of the § 289 total profits remedy, rather than reasonable royalty or lost profits, reflects Solawave’s strategic choice to maximise recovery. The broad injunction language — extending to ‘all persons acting in active concert’ and directly binding third-party platforms — is characteristic of N.D. Ill. Schedule A practice and gives Solawave broad post-judgment enforcement reach.
USD1024350S — Ornamental design for a facial wand device
USD1024350S is a U.S. design patent (application number 29/870,678) protecting the ornamental appearance of Solawave’s facial wand — a consumer skincare device that has gained significant market traction in the LED and microcurrent skincare segment. Design patents protect only the non-functional, visual characteristics of a product as depicted in the patent’s drawings; the claim is defined by those figures rather than written claims. The patent gives Solawave the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing any product whose overall visual impression is substantially similar to the patented design.
In the crowded skincare device market — where facial wands, LED masks, and microcurrent tools from brands including NuFACE, CurrentBody, and numerous white-label manufacturers compete aggressively — a registered design patent on a distinctive product form creates meaningful legal separation from imitators. The § 289 total profits remedy makes design patents particularly potent against offshore manufacturers selling on marketplace platforms, where the entire article is often perceived as embodying the protected design, potentially making all revenue from infringing sales recoverable without apportionment.
Should you run an FTO against USD1024350S for facial wand products?
Any company developing, importing, or selling a handheld skincare facial wand device — particularly one with a similar elongated form factor intended for facial use — should assess clearance against USD1024350S. The risk is not limited to direct competitors of Solawave: private-label manufacturers, contract electronics firms sourcing facial devices from Asia, and online marketplace resellers are all potential targets of the same enforcement template used in this case. The relevant legal test is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would find the designs substantially similar.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental scope of USD1024350S by analysing the patent drawings, identifying prior art that narrows enforceable scope, and surfacing related Solawave design applications that may extend coverage to additional product configurations. For product teams preparing a new facial device launch, an Eureka FTO report can identify design-around strategies and flag whether pending applications in Solawave’s portfolio present additional clearance concerns before market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1024350S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable design patent infringement default judgments against anonymous e-commerce sellers filed in the Northern District of Illinois involving consumer skincare and personal care devices.
What this case signals for the skincare device IP landscape
Solawave’s rapid default judgment reinforces the Northern District of Illinois as the go-to venue for design patent enforcement against e-commerce counterfeiters.
Design patents are increasingly frontline IP weapons for consumer devices
Unlike utility patents, design patents are faster to obtain, cheaper to enforce, and entitle holders to total profit disgorgement under § 289. For skincare technology brands, securing design patents on distinctive product forms — not just utility innovations — is now a core commercialisation strategy that enables rapid, high-recovery enforcement actions like this one.
Platform fund freezes make N.D. Ill. Schedule A cases self-executing
The court’s orders to Amazon, eBay, Walmart, Alibaba, and PayPal to freeze and transfer funds within 7–14 days mean that successful default judgments can generate near-immediate cash recovery. This makes the Schedule A model commercially attractive even for smaller brands: the surety bond here was only $30,000, while potential recoveries from multiple defendants may significantly exceed that.
Solawave v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in favour of Solawave Inc. on March 13, 2025. The court found the defaulting defendants liable for design patent infringement of USD1024350S under 35 U.S.C. § 271, granted a permanent injunction, and awarded Solawave the defendants’ profits from infringing facial wand sales under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
USD1024350S (application no. 29/870,678) is a U.S. design patent held by Solawave Inc. that protects the ornamental appearance of its facial wand skincare device. Design patents cover only the non-functional visual characteristics of a product as depicted in the patent’s drawings, not its underlying technology or functionality.
Section 289 allows a design patent holder to recover the total profits an infringer made from selling an infringing article — without apportioning those profits to the design contribution alone. This is more plaintiff-favourable than utility patent damages. The Supreme Court in Samsung v. Apple (2016) confirmed § 289 applies but left open how to define the relevant ‘article of manufacture’ for apportionment purposes.
The Northern District of Illinois, particularly its Chicago division, has become the dominant U.S. venue for Schedule A design patent enforcement against anonymous online marketplace sellers. The district’s established procedures for granting TROs, sealing Schedule A defendant lists, and ordering platform-level fund freezes make it commercially efficient for brand owners pursuing large groups of anonymous offshore infringers.
Technically, defendants may file a motion to vacate the default judgment under FRCP 60(b), but such motions succeed only when defendants demonstrate good cause for non-appearance, a meritorious defence, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff. In practice, anonymous offshore sellers rarely emerge to contest these judgments. The more common outcome is that sellers re-emerge under new aliases, which is why Solawave was granted supplemental enforcement authority.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.