Toy Aircraft Design Patent Default Judgment: Dongguan Tesimai v. Schedule A Defendants

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This case involved U.S. Design Patent USD891522S (Application No. US29/730859), protecting the ornamental appearance of a toy aircraft product. Design patents cover the visual characteristics of a product — not its functional mechanics — making them particularly powerful tools against counterfeit goods that replicate a product’s distinctive look.

• • US D891,522S — Ornamental design for a toy aircraft.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Filed in the Northern District of Illinois — a preferred venue for Schedule A patent and trademark enforcement actions — the case moved at a pace consistent with uncontested IP litigation. The court, presided over by Chief Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, entered a preliminary injunction early in the proceedings, freezing defendants’ financial accounts and marketplace listings before final judgment.

Service of process was accomplished through a combination of electronic publication, email notification, and notices from domain registrars and payment processors — a court-approved alternative service method routinely utilized in Schedule A litigation where defendants are often anonymous overseas sellers.

No defaulting defendant answered or appeared. The 153-day resolution from filing to final judgment reflects the procedural efficiency achievable when defendants fail to contest claims, though practitioners should note this timeline also reflects the court’s familiarity with this litigation model.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in full. Key relief awarded includes:

• Permanent injunction against all defaulting defendants prohibiting future infringement
• Statutory damages of $10,000 per defaulting defendant under 17 U.S.C. § 504 for willful copyright infringement (applied once per distinct defendant regardless of multiple aliases)
• Asset freeze and fund transfer directing third-party payment processors to release restrained funds to Plaintiff up to the damages amount
• Platform-level enforcement requiring Amazon, eBay, Temu, Walmart, AliExpress, Wish.com, DHgate, and associated payment processors (PayPal, Alipay, Ant Financial, Amazon Pay) to disable accounts and cease processing within seven calendar days
• Ongoing supplemental proceedings authority under FRCP 69 until full damages recovery

Willful Infringement Findings

The court found defaulting defendants liable for:

1. Willful design patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq.
2. Willful copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 100 et seq.

Because defendants defaulted, the complaint’s allegations were deemed admitted — including willfulness. The court independently established personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants based on screenshot evidence demonstrating that each defendant’s e-commerce storefront actively targeted U.S. and Illinois consumers: accepting U.S. dollar payments, offering U.S. shipping, and maintaining interactive commercial listings accessible to Illinois residents.

Legal Significance

Several legally notable elements distinguish this default judgment:

Dual IP assertion: Tesimai pursued both design patent and copyright claims simultaneously — a strategy that maximizes available remedies and creates redundancy if one claim faces validity challenge. Copyright’s statutory damages (up to $150,000 for willful infringement) can be particularly potent, though $10,000 per defendant was awarded here.

Per-defendant damages structure: The court’s instruction that the $10,000 award applies *once per distinct defaulting defendant* — even where multiple aliases are used — is a meaningful limitation practitioners should note when calculating expected recovery in multi-alias Schedule A matters.

Third-party platform obligations: The judgment’s direct commands to marketplace platforms and payment processors — with seven-day compliance windows — reflect the evolved enforcement infrastructure available in this litigation model, making injunctive relief practically enforceable without requiring direct defendant cooperation.