Steel City Enterprises Wins Default Judgment in Design Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Steel City Enterprises, Inc. v. Schedule A Defendants |
| Case Number | 1:23-cv-06993 (N.D. Ill.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Chief Judge Manish S. Shah |
| Duration | Sept 2023 – Apr 2024 211 days |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win — Default Judgment, Damages & Injunctions |
| Patent at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Jug Plug products sold through e-commerce platforms (Amazon, eBay, Walmart) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Intellectual property rights holder for the Jug Plug product line, asserting design rights against unauthorized sellers.
🛡️ Defendants
Thirteen online storefronts, many with foreign-based operations, selling infringing Jug Plug products on platforms like Amazon, eBay, and Walmart.
The Patent at Issue
This case involved **U.S. Design Patent No. D977,973** (Application No. 29/825,986), which protects the ornamental design of the Jug Plug product. Design patents, granted under 35 U.S.C. § 171, protect the visual appearance of a product rather than its functional aspects.
- • US D977,973 — Ornamental design of the Jug Plug product
Designing a similar product to Jug Plug?
Check if your product’s design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Steel City’s Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment in full. All 13 remaining defaulting defendants were found liable for willful patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. The court awarded:
- Damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (reasonable royalty plus expected transaction costs): $4,666.67 per defendant for 12 of the 13 defaulting defendants.
- Damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289 (total profits): $27,938.88 against Red Deer Express specifically.
- Attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285: $1,423.65 per defaulting defendant, with the case declared exceptional.
- A permanent injunction against all defaulting defendants and associated third-party platforms.
Verdict Cause Analysis
Because no defendant appeared, the court treated the allegations of the Amended Complaint as uncontroverted and deemed admitted — a standard consequence of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. The court’s finding of willful infringement was supported by the admitted allegations and the defendants’ deliberate targeting of U.S. consumers through e-commerce platforms. The differential damages treatment highlights the power of 35 U.S.C. § 289 for design patents, allowing full profit disgorgement against Red Deer Express.
Legal Significance
This ruling reinforces several critical doctrines for design patent litigation practitioners:
- § 289 remains a powerful design patent remedy, allowing full profit disgorgement without the need for apportionment — a stark contrast to utility patent damages under § 284.
- Schedule A enforcement continues to be viable in the Northern District of Illinois, with courts affirming jurisdiction over foreign defendants who target U.S. consumers through online storefronts.
- Electronic service and marketplace-level notice satisfy due process standards in e-commerce enforcement actions.
Strategic Takeaways
This case delivers key lessons for all parties in the IP ecosystem:
- For Patent Holders: Design patents offer an underutilized enforcement mechanism against copycat sellers, with the § 289 total profits remedy providing disproportionate leverage.
- For Accused Infringers: Failure to appear guarantees adverse judgment. Early engagement, including default-avoidance settlements, typically produces better outcomes.
- For R&D Teams: Products with distinctive ornamental designs should be evaluated for design patent protection. Competitive freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis should include design patent searches.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis: Lessons from Steel City
This case highlights critical IP risks in e-commerce product design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand Design Patent Enforcement
Learn about Schedule A litigation, e-commerce enforcement trends, and design patent strategy.
- Analyze enforcement actions against e-commerce sellers
- Identify key jurisdictions for design patent litigation
- Explore strategies for protecting ornamental designs
🔍 Check My Product’s Design Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own product’s ornamental design.
- Input your product’s visual elements or technical drawings
- AI identifies potentially blocking design patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report for your aesthetics
High Risk Area
E-commerce platforms for design copying
1 Design Patent
Successfully enforced against 13 defendants
Proactive Enforcement
Key for brand owners on marketplaces
✅ Key Takeaways
§ 289 total profit disgorgement remains a high-impact remedy in design patent cases — consider targeting highest-revenue defendants for this theory.
Search related case law →Default judgment procedures in Schedule A cases are well-established in N.D. Illinois; procedural compliance is critical to obtaining full relief.
Explore N.D. Illinois precedents →Exceptional case findings under § 285 are achievable where willful infringement is admitted by default, justifying attorney’s fee awards.
Understand exceptional case criteria →Frequently Asked Questions
The case centered on U.S. Design Patent No. D977,973 (Application No. 29/825,986), covering the ornamental design of the Jug Plug product.
Red Deer Express was assessed total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 — a design patent-specific remedy — resulting in a $27,938.88 award, compared to the $4,666.67 reasonable royalty awarded against other defendants under § 284.
The ruling reinforces that N.D. Illinois courts will grant full default relief — including permanent injunctions, damages, and attorney’s fees — against non-appearing marketplace defendants, strengthening the Schedule A enforcement model.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — Case 1:23-cv-06993
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Design Patent No. D977,973
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 289
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.