Solawave Inc. v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in 66 Days
Solawave Inc. pursued anonymous e-commerce sellers across Amazon, Temu, TikTok, and six other platforms for infringing its facial wand design patent USD1024350S. A permanent injunction and disgorgement of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 were secured in just 66 days, with third-party payment processors ordered to release frozen funds directly to the plaintiff.
Solawave’s rapid Schedule A takedown of facial wand counterfeiters
On 7 October 2024, Solawave Inc., a beauty-technology brand and holder of design patent USD1024350S covering a facial wand, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. The defendants — identified only as ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule A’ — were anonymous online sellers operating across major e-commerce platforms including Amazon, Temu, TikTok, eBay, Wish.com, Etsy, DHgate, Walmart, and AliExpress.
With no defendant appearing to contest the action, Judge Kennelly entered a default judgment on 12 December 2024. The order permanently enjoins all defaulting defendants and their affiliates from offering, selling, or importing the infringing facial wand product. Critically, the court invoked 35 U.S.C. § 289 — the design patent profit disgorgement statute — awarding Solawave the total profits each defendant earned from infringing sales, with payment processors including PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, and Ant Financial ordered to release frozen funds within seven days.
The 66-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated cadence typical of Schedule A infringement actions in the Northern District of Illinois, where ex parte TROs and asset freezes routinely precede default. What remains unknown from the public record is the aggregate damages amount, as individual seller profit figures are listed in a chart incorporated by reference rather than disclosed in the face of the order. The defendants’ failure to appear — itself a common feature of offshore marketplace enforcement — prevented any challenge to either infringement or damages quantum.
Filing to Default Judgment in 66 days
66 days — resolved well below the district court median for patent infringement cases
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: what it means when defendants don’t appear
A default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) is entered when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and determines appropriate relief. Here, Solawave’s allegations of design patent infringement were uncontested, enabling the court to award a permanent injunction and disgorgement of profits without a merits trial.
Uncontested infringement findingSolawave obtains permanent injunction and profit disgorgement
Solawave secured broad injunctive relief covering not just direct sales but also aiding, abetting, and entity restructuring to circumvent the order. Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, design patent holders may recover infringers’ total profits — a stronger remedy than lost profits or reasonable royalty. The order also directs nine payment processors to release frozen funds directly to Solawave within seven days, accelerating recovery.
§ 289 total profits remedyDefaulting sellers face frozen accounts and permanent marketplace bans
By failing to appear, the Schedule A defendants forfeited any opportunity to contest infringement, challenge patent validity, or dispute damages. Their financial accounts across PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, Ant Financial, eBay, Wish.com, DHgate, Walmart, Etsy, Temu, and TikTok have been permanently restrained up to the profit award. Solawave retains ongoing authority to serve the order on newly identified accounts, making evasion structurally difficult.
Assets frozen across nine platformsSchedule A tactics set a replicable enforcement template for design patents
This case illustrates how design patent holders in the consumer electronics and beauty-tech sector can use Schedule A actions to rapidly neutralise anonymous offshore infringers at scale. The combination of ex parte TRO, asset freeze, and § 289 disgorgement creates strong economic deterrence. Competing facial-device brands operating on the same marketplaces should treat this outcome as a signal that design IP is actively and swiftly enforced in the Northern District of Illinois.
Replicable e-commerce enforcement modelFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Solawave Inc. | Company | Beauty-technology brand — holder of facial wand design patent USD1024350SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers operating across nine major online marketplacesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Daniel Burnham | 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 law firm | Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Matthew F. Kennelly | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order is sweeping in scope, covering not only direct infringers but also affiliates, agents, and any new entities formed to circumvent the injunction — a structural feature designed to prevent evasion through corporate restructuring. The invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 289 is significant: unlike compensatory damages, design patent profit disgorgement requires no apportionment to the patented feature, maximising plaintiff recovery. The order’s seven-day payment processor compliance window reflects the Northern District of Illinois’s established practice in Schedule A cases of treating financial relief as integral to, not separate from, injunctive relief.
USD1024350S — Facial Wand Ornamental Design
USD1024350S (application number 29/870678) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a facial wand — a handheld skincare device in the beauty-technology category. Design patents protect the non-functional, visual characteristics of a product rather than its underlying mechanics, making them directly enforceable against any product that, in the eye of an ordinary observer, appears substantially similar to the patented design. The filing date and prosecution history of App. No. 29/870678 are relevant to assessing the scope of protected ornamental elements.
In the rapidly growing LED and microcurrent facial device market, distinctive industrial design is a primary commercial differentiator — and a primary infringement target. Solawave’s willingness to pursue nine marketplace platforms simultaneously signals that USD1024350S is treated as a core commercial asset, not a defensive filing. Competitors and OEM suppliers producing facial wands with similar form factors — particularly those distributed via Amazon, Temu, or TikTok Shop — face meaningful infringement exposure if their product’s overall visual impression overlaps with the protected design.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1024350S?
Any brand, OEM, or private-label seller developing or distributing a facial wand or handheld skincare device for sale on U.S. e-commerce platforms should assess freedom-to-operate against USD1024350S. The Northern District of Illinois’s demonstrated willingness to grant ex parte TROs and asset freezes in Schedule A cases means that infringement exposure is not merely a litigation risk — it is an operational risk that can freeze marketplace accounts and payment processor funds within weeks of a complaint being filed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental claim scope of USD1024350S against your product’s design, identify prior art that may bear on validity, and surface related design patent filings in Solawave’s portfolio that may represent additional enforcement risk. Running this analysis before a product launch — or before onboarding a new supplier’s SKU — is materially cheaper than responding to a TRO motion.
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 the Northern District of Illinois
Cases involving design patent enforcement against anonymous e-commerce defendants in the Northern District of Illinois, with comparable § 289 disgorgement and asset freeze outcomes.
What this case signals for the beauty-tech design patent landscape
Solawave’s 66-day sweep of nine marketplaces shows how design patents can function as rapid commercial weapons against anonymous online infringers.
Design patents under § 289 are particularly powerful against online resellers
Unlike utility patent damages, § 289 entitles design patent holders to the infringer’s total article profits — not just attributable profit. For high-volume, low-margin marketplace sellers, this can exceed the product’s total revenue. Brands with distinctive product designs should consider design patent filing as a front-line e-commerce enforcement strategy.
Asset freeze orders reach across payment processors before defendants can react
Solawave’s ability to freeze funds across PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, Ant Financial, and five other processors simultaneously — before defendants appeared — reflects a key tactical advantage of Schedule A actions. The ex parte TRO mechanism in the Northern District of Illinois effectively prevents capital flight. IP counsel should map client payment-processor exposure early in enforcement planning.
Solawave v Partnerships — key questions answered
Solawave Inc. asserted design patent USD1024350S (application number 29/870678), which covers the ornamental design of a facial wand skincare device. The case was filed in the Northern District of Illinois on 7 October 2024.
35 U.S.C. § 289 is the design patent profit disgorgement statute. It entitles a design patent holder to recover the total profits the infringer made from selling the infringing article — without apportionment to the patented feature. In this case, the court awarded Solawave each defaulting defendant’s total profits from facial wand sales, which is typically a larger recovery than a reasonable royalty or lost profits calculation.
The case resolved via default judgment after none of the Schedule A defendants appeared to contest the action. The Northern District of Illinois has an established procedural framework for Schedule A cases that allows ex parte TROs, asset freezes, and accelerated default proceedings — compressing timelines significantly compared to contested patent litigation.
The order covers sales on Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish.com, Walmart, Etsy, Temu, TikTok, and DHgate. Payment processors ordered to freeze and release funds include PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, Ant Financial, and several others connected to those marketplaces.
A defaulting party may move to vacate a default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) if they can demonstrate good cause, a meritorious defence, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff. However, given the asset freeze and fund-release provisions already executed, practical recovery of released funds would be a significant additional obstacle. The public record does not reflect any such motion having been filed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.