Sportspower v. Zhejiang Hongcheng: $147,762 Default Judgment on Hexagonal Trampoline Design Patent
Sportspower, Ltd. secured a default judgment in the Western District of Texas against Chinese manufacturer Zhejiang Hongcheng Information Technology Co., Ltd. for infringing U.S. Design Patent D653,299, which covers the ornamental design of a hexagonal trampoline. The court awarded $147,762.30 in damages plus pre- and post-judgment interest, a permanent injunction, and ordered destruction of all infringing products — the case closed 902 days after filing.
Design patent default judgment against Chinese trampoline maker
On January 26, 2023, Sportspower, Ltd. filed an infringement action in the Western District of Texas against Zhejiang Hongcheng Information Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese technology company, alleging infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D653,299, which protects the ornamental design of a hexagonal trampoline. The case was assigned to Judge Orlando L. Garcia. Sportspower was represented by Clement Cheng of Newhope Law PC; no defense counsel appears in the public record.
With no appearance or response from the defendant, the court granted Sportspower’s Motion for Default Judgment on June 9, 2025. The judgment deemed all material allegations of the complaint admitted, awarded $147,762.30 in damages, pre-judgment interest accruing at 7.5% annually from January 18, 2021, and post-judgment interest at 4.08%. The court also issued a permanent injunction barring Zhejiang Hongcheng from using or selling products under Sportspower’s design patent and trade dress, and ordered the defendant to deliver all infringing products for destruction at its own cost.
The 902-day duration from filing to close is longer than the typical default timeline and likely reflects the practical challenges of serving a Chinese corporate defendant and establishing jurisdictional grounds over a foreign entity. The pre-judgment interest start date of January 18, 2021 — predating the complaint by over two years — suggests Sportspower alleged infringement beginning well before litigation commenced. Whether Zhejiang Hongcheng will satisfy the monetary judgment remains unknown from the public record, as cross-border enforcement against Chinese entities presents a separate practical challenge.
Filing to Default Judgment in 902 days
902 days from filing to final judgment — default cases typically resolve faster, suggesting service or jurisdiction complexities involving a Chinese defendant
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: all complaint allegations deemed admitted
A default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond. The court deems all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint admitted. Here, the Western District of Texas accepted Sportspower’s infringement allegations as established fact without any merits contest from Zhejiang Hongcheng, and entered a final judgment that fully resolves all claims.
Rule 55 default — no contestSportspower wins full relief: damages, injunction, destruction order
Sportspower obtained the full spectrum of patent relief: $147,762.30 in compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest stretching back to January 2021, a permanent injunction barring future use or sale of infringing products, and a mandatory destruction order for all infringing inventory. The design patent and trade dress rights are now expressly confirmed by court order. Practical enforcement against a Chinese entity remains a separate challenge.
Full relief grantedZhejiang Hongcheng faces judgment debt and permanent injunction
By failing to appear, Zhejiang Hongcheng forfeited any opportunity to contest infringement, challenge the patent’s validity, or dispute the damages calculation. The company is now subject to a binding U.S. federal judgment of over $147,000 plus accruing interest, a permanent injunction, and a product destruction order. Non-compliance risks contempt proceedings if the defendant has any U.S.-accessible assets or future U.S. market activity.
Judgment debtor — no defense filedDesign patent enforcement against overseas manufacturers: a clear signal
This case illustrates that U.S. design patent holders can obtain meaningful judicial relief — including injunctions and damages reaching back years before filing — against non-appearing foreign defendants. For the trampoline and outdoor recreation sector, it signals that ornamental design rights will be actively enforced against Chinese suppliers selling into the U.S. market, and that default judgments can serve as a strategic tool where foreign defendants do not engage.
Cross-border design enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Sportspower, Ltd. | Company | Outdoor recreational products company — holder of U.S. Design Patent D653,299 (hexagonal trampoline)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Zhejiang Hongcheng Information Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Zhejiang Hongcheng Information Technology Co., Ltd. — Chinese manufacturer accused of infringing hexagonal trampoline designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Clement Cheng | Attorney | Counsel for Sportspower, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Newhope Law PC | Law Firm | Representing Sportspower, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Orlando L. Garcia | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment is comprehensive in scope: the court explicitly confirmed subject matter and personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, deemed all infringement allegations admitted, quantified damages at $147,762.30, and issued a permanent injunction covering both patent and trade dress rights. The destruction order — requiring the defendant to bear the cost of delivering infringing products to the plaintiff — goes beyond a typical monetary award and reflects the court’s intent to extinguish infringing inventory from the supply chain entirely. The pre-judgment interest start date of January 18, 2021 is significant, as it anchors Sportspower’s economic harm to a period well before the January 2023 filing, consistent with a longer-running infringement pattern alleged in the complaint.
U.S. Design Patent D653,299 — Ornamental Design of a Hexagonal Trampoline
U.S. Design Patent No. D653,299 (application number 29/375,103) protects the ornamental design of a hexagonal trampoline. As a design patent, it covers the visual and aesthetic appearance of the product — specifically the hexagonal shape and associated design elements — rather than functional aspects. Design patents in the U.S. typically have a 15-year term from grant. The patent represents Sportspower’s proprietary product aesthetic in the competitive outdoor recreational equipment market.
Hexagonal trampolines occupy a distinct visual niche within the broader trampoline market, differentiating from standard round or rectangular designs. A design patent on this form factor gives Sportspower the ability to exclude competitors — including overseas manufacturers and distributors — from selling visually similar products in the U.S. without authorisation. The fact that Zhejiang Hongcheng was found to have no right or authorisation to use the patent, and that the court also found trade dress infringement, suggests the infringing product was a close visual copy rather than a near-miss design-around.
Should you run an FTO check against U.S. Design Patent D653,299?
Any manufacturer, importer, or retailer sourcing hexagonal trampolines — particularly from Chinese OEMs — should conduct a freedom-to-operate review against D653,299. The Western District of Texas has now confirmed the patent’s enforceability and Sportspower’s willingness to litigate. Platform sellers, distributors, and private-label operators offering visually similar hexagonal trampoline designs face real injunction and damages exposure, especially if pre-filing sales are later alleged.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the design claim scope of D653,299, identify visually similar design patent families, and surface any post-grant proceedings or assignments that may affect enforceability. For product teams assessing whether a new trampoline design clears existing IP, Eureka’s image-based design patent search provides rapid landscape visibility across the recreational equipment category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0653299S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in outdoor recreational equipment
Cases below involve U.S. design patent enforcement in the outdoor recreational equipment sector, including comparable default judgment proceedings in Texas federal courts.
What this case signals for the outdoor recreation IP landscape
A default judgment with permanent injunction and destruction order reinforces design patent enforcement as a credible lever against overseas manufacturers.
Design patents are viable enforcement tools against Chinese OEMs
Sportspower’s recovery demonstrates that U.S. design patents can be enforced against Chinese manufacturers even without the defendant engaging in proceedings. Companies holding design rights in consumer recreation products should audit their portfolios for similar exposure from overseas sellers and consider whether litigation or platform takedowns are the faster enforcement path.
Pre-judgment interest from 2021 signals earlier infringement than the filing date
The court’s award of pre-judgment interest dating to January 18, 2021 — more than two years before the complaint was filed — suggests Sportspower documented infringement well before commencing litigation. Competitors and manufacturers in the trampoline sector should assess their supply chains for products matching D653,299 that may have been sold or distributed prior to any formal notice.
Sportspower v Zhejiang — key questions answered
The Western District of Texas entered a default judgment awarding Sportspower $147,762.30 in damages, pre-judgment interest at 7.5% per annum from January 18, 2021, and post-judgment interest at 4.08%. The court also issued a permanent injunction against further use or sale of infringing products and ordered Zhejiang Hongcheng to deliver all infringing products for destruction at its own cost.
U.S. Design Patent D653,299 (application no. 29/375,103) is held by Sportspower, Ltd. and protects the ornamental design of a hexagonal trampoline. As a design patent, it covers the visual appearance of the product rather than its functional characteristics. The court found that Zhejiang Hongcheng had no right or authorisation to use the patent.
The 902-day duration is longer than typical default proceedings and likely reflects the procedural complexity of serving process on a Chinese corporate defendant and establishing personal jurisdiction over a foreign entity in U.S. federal court. These steps can add substantial time before a default judgment motion can be filed and granted.
The injunction is a valid U.S. federal court order. Enforcement against a Chinese entity that has no U.S. presence, however, depends on whether the defendant has accessible U.S. assets, platform seller accounts, importer relationships, or other domestic touchpoints. Cross-border enforcement of U.S. judgments in China requires separate recognition proceedings under Chinese law, which is a distinct and often challenging process.
The court’s permanent injunction covers both the design patent (D653,299) and Sportspower’s trade dress, suggesting the complaint alleged the infringing product also copied the distinctive visual identity or commercial appearance associated with Sportspower’s brand. This dual protection reinforces Sportspower’s exclusive rights in the hexagonal trampoline design and broadens the scope of what the defendant is permanently enjoined from using or selling.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.