Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent and IP Rights at Issue

The protected intellectual property centers on USD0891522S (application number US29/730859), a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a toy aircraft. Design patents protect the unique visual characteristics of a product, not its functional attributes. Liao’s protected designs were allegedly reproduced and sold without authorization across multiple online storefronts.

Alongside design patent rights, the complaint invoked three copyrighted works associated with the product, forming the statutory damages basis under 17 U.S.C. § 504.

Plaintiff was represented by attorneys Keaton David Smith and Shengmao Mu of Whitewood Law, PLLC — a firm with a recognized practice in Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions. No defense counsel entered an appearance for any named defendant.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

In a swift 89-day resolution, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in favor of plaintiff Gulan Liao against a sprawling network of online marketplace sellers accused of infringing a federally registered toy aircraft design patent. Case No. 1:24-cv-03297, presided over by Chief Judge Sunil R. Harjani, closed on July 22, 2024 — delivering permanent injunctive relief and $50,000 in statutory copyright damages per defaulting defendant.

The 89-day timeline from filing to closed judgment is notably compressed, reflecting the default procedural pathway: absent any defendant response or appearance, Liao’s counsel moved for entry of default and subsequently default judgment. Chief Judge Sunil R. Harjani granted the motion, bypassing trial entirely.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

Chief Judge Harjani granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in full. The court’s order established the following:

• • Permanent Injunction: All defaulting defendants, their agents, and affiliated parties are permanently enjoined from manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing any product embodying Liao’s protected designs or any colorable imitation thereof.
• • Statutory Damages: $50,000 per defaulting defendant for willful copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504, applied once per distinct defendant entity even where multiple aliases were used.
• • Asset Freeze and Transfer: Third-party payment processors — including PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, Ant Financial, Alibaba, and Wish.com — were ordered to freeze and release restrained funds to plaintiff within 14 calendar days.
• • Platform-Level Enforcement: Online marketplace platforms including eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Amazon, Wish.com, and DHgate were directed to disable defendant storefronts and associated advertising within seven calendar days.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The legal foundation for judgment rested on uncontested infringement allegations. Because no defendant filed an answer or otherwise appeared, the court accepted Liao’s well-pleaded factual allegations as admitted. The willfulness finding — which elevated statutory damages — similarly went unchallenged.

The copyright damages framework under 17 U.S.C. § 504 allowed the court to award between $750 and $150,000 per infringed work for willful infringement. The $50,000 per-defendant award reflects a mid-range willfulness finding applied across three copyrighted works, consolidated into a single per-defendant figure — a damages structuring approach courts in this district have applied consistently in analogous Schedule A actions.

Legal Significance

This case reinforces several important doctrinal and procedural points:

• • Design Patent and Copyright Overlap: Plaintiffs increasingly assert both design patent and copyright claims simultaneously over product aesthetics, maximizing enforcement leverage and damages exposure.
• • Default as Enforcement Tool: When defendants are overseas entities with no U.S. presence or counsel, default judgment operates as the primary — and often only — practical enforcement mechanism.
• • Multi-Platform Injunctions: The court’s willingness to bind third-party platforms (Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, Wish.com, DHgate) and payment processors directly reflects established Northern District of Illinois practice in Schedule A litigation.