Switch Project v. Zhang: Default Judgment & Permanent Injunction in Sticker Patent Case
Switch Project, LLC filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against Litao Zhang, alleging infringement of two patents covering AirPods and phone sticker products. With no defense entered, the court granted a default judgment and permanent injunction — resolving the case in 216 days.
Unopposed sticker patent suit ends in permanent injunction for Switch Project
Switch Project, LLC filed this patent infringement action on April 4, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Franklin U. Valderrama. The plaintiff asserted two patents — US11678471B2 and US12133371B2 — covering proprietary sticker designs applied to AirPods and mobile phones against individual defendant Litao Zhang.
The case closed on November 6, 2025, via default judgment after Zhang failed to appear, answer, or otherwise defend the action. Judge Valderrama reviewed Switch Project’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction and granted it in full, issuing both a monetary judgment and a permanent injunction against the defendant — the strongest form of relief available at the district court level.
At 216 days from filing to closure, the resolution timeline reflects the procedural efficiency of default proceedings rather than any contested merits adjudication. The public record does not reveal whether Zhang was notified and chose not to respond, or whether service presented difficulties — a common ambiguity in default cases involving individual defendants. The terms of any monetary award are not disclosed in the available record.
Filing to Default Judgment in 216 days
216 days — resolved faster than the typical N.D. Ill. patent case average
Default judgment entered: what the court’s ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: court rules without a contested hearing
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond within the required time. The court treats the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as admitted and evaluates whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought. In patent cases, this typically means infringement is deemed established — the court then assesses appropriate relief, here granting both judgment and a permanent injunction.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)Switch Project secures full relief — judgment and injunction
Switch Project obtained the strongest outcome available at the district court level: a permanent injunction barring Zhang from continuing to make, use, sell, or import the infringing sticker products. This prevents ongoing harm without requiring Switch Project to prove damages at trial. The injunction also strengthens Switch Project’s ability to enforce its patents against other potential infringers in the sticker accessory market.
Permanent injunction grantedZhang faces injunction and judgment with no merits record
Because Zhang did not appear, no defense was presented and no invalidity or non-infringement arguments entered the record. Zhang faces a binding court order and any monetary award included in the judgment. To undo this outcome, Zhang would need to file a motion to vacate the default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which requires showing good cause, a meritorious defense, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff — a high bar.
No defense on recordInjunction signals active enforcement in the sticker accessories market
The grant of a permanent injunction — even on default — establishes an enforceable court order that can be used against the defendant and signals Switch Project’s willingness to litigate. For sellers of AirPods and phone sticker products, this case suggests Switch Project is actively monitoring and enforcing its IP portfolio. Sellers of similar products should assess whether their designs fall within the scope of US11678471B2 or US12133371B2.
Active enforcement postureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Switch Project, LLC | Company | Consumer product IP licensor — holder of US11678471B2 and US12133371B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Litao Zhang | Individual | Individual defendant Litao Zhang — alleged seller of infringing AirPods and phone stickersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alan W. Nicgorski | Attorney | Counsel for Switch Project, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cody Ross Lejeune | Attorney | Counsel for Switch Project, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hansen Reynolds LLC | Law Firm | Representing Switch Project, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | LeJeune Law PC | Law Firm | Representing Switch Project, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Franklin U. Valderrama | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granting Switch Project’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction is a merits-adjacent ruling: infringement allegations are deemed admitted by virtue of Zhang’s failure to appear, but no independent claim construction or validity analysis was conducted. The permanent injunction is the operative relief — it binds Zhang going forward and can be enforced through contempt. The record does not disclose the quantum of any damages award included in the judgment.
US11678471B2 & US12133371B2 — AirPods and phone decorative sticker patents
US11678471B2 (App. No. US17/855188) and US12133371B2 (App. No. US18/701347) are both assigned to Switch Project, LLC and cover proprietary designs or constructions in the consumer accessory sticker space — specifically products applied to AirPods cases and mobile phone surfaces. The filing of two separate patents across distinct application series suggests a deliberate portfolio-building strategy to protect both core and continuation-level innovations in this product category.
For the consumer accessories market, where design differentiation is commercially significant and manufacturing barriers are low, owning enforceable patents on sticker product designs creates a meaningful moat. The willingness to assert both patents in a single infringement action against an individual seller indicates Switch Project treats this portfolio as commercially central. Competitors and OEM sticker manufacturers should map their product designs against the claims of both patents to assess exposure.
Should you run an FTO against US11678471B2 and US12133371B2?
Any business selling AirPods-compatible sticker accessories or decorative phone stickers in the U.S. market faces potential exposure to Switch Project’s enforced portfolio. This case demonstrates that Switch Project is actively litigating — and obtaining injunctions — against sellers of these product categories. An FTO analysis is particularly urgent for e-commerce sellers, importers, and OEM suppliers who may not have assessed claim scope for either patent.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US11678471B2 and US12133371B2 against your specific product designs, identify prior art that may bear on validity, and surface related family members or continuations that could expand Switch Project’s enforcement perimeter. Running this analysis before receiving a demand letter is significantly more cost-effective than litigation defense.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11678471B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar consumer accessory patent infringement cases in N.D. Illinois
Browse comparable patent infringement actions involving consumer electronics accessories and decorative product IP litigated in the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the consumer accessories IP landscape
A default win with permanent injunction is a low-cost, high-leverage enforcement tool — and this case shows how it plays out in the sticker accessories market.
Default judgments are a deliberate enforcement strategy, not just luck
Filing against individual sellers who lack legal resources often results in no response and a default. Switch Project’s ability to secure a permanent injunction without a full trial demonstrates that targeted enforcement actions against smaller defendants can yield durable IP protection quickly and cost-effectively. This pattern is common in consumer product patent portfolios.
Permanent injunctions on default are enforceable and hard to overturn
A defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment faces a multi-factor test under Rule 60(b). Without a strong showing of a meritorious defense, courts rarely set aside default judgments. For Switch Project, this means the injunction against Zhang carries real legal weight and can be enforced through contempt proceedings if violated.
Switch v Litao — key questions answered
Switch Project, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Litao Zhang in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting US11678471B2 and US12133371B2 covering AirPods and phone sticker products. Zhang did not appear or respond, and the court entered a default judgment and permanent injunction in Switch Project’s favor on November 6, 2025.
Switch Project asserted two patents: US11678471B2 (App. No. US17/855188) and US12133371B2 (App. No. US18/701347). Both cover technology related to decorative sticker products — specifically AirPods stickers and phone stickers — in the consumer accessories category.
The permanent injunction is a court order prohibiting Litao Zhang from continuing to make, use, sell, offer for sale, or import the infringing sticker products. It is immediately enforceable and violations can be pursued through contempt proceedings. To have it vacated, Zhang would need to successfully move under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), demonstrating a meritorious defense and good cause.
Yes, but the bar is high. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), Zhang would need to show good cause for failing to respond, a meritorious defense to the infringement claims, and that vacating the judgment would not prejudice Switch Project. Courts are generally reluctant to set aside default judgments absent compelling circumstances. The public record does not indicate any such motion has been filed.
This case signals that Switch Project actively enforces its sticker patent portfolio and is willing to litigate to obtain permanent injunctions. Sellers, importers, and manufacturers of AirPods-compatible or phone sticker accessories in the U.S. should consider conducting a freedom-to-operate analysis against US11678471B2 and US12133371B2 to assess whether their products fall within the asserted claims.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.