Toy Gun Design Patent Infringement: Default Judgment Won Against 100+ E-Commerce Sellers
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Siu Shong Tsang v. Apex Supplies Plus et al. |
| Case Number | 1:23-cv-06614 (N.D. Ill.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Duration | Aug 2023 – Mar 2024 189 Days |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win — Default Judgment, $50,000 per Defendant |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Toy Guns (various e-commerce sellers) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Individual inventor and design patent holder asserting ownership of two USPTO-registered toy gun designs, represented by Whitewood Law, PLLC.
🛡️ Defendant
Over one hundred e-commerce sellers operating across major U.S.-accessible marketplaces (Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Wish.com, DHgate) selling infringing toy gun products.
The Patents at Issue
This enforcement action leveraged two U.S. design patents, emphasizing the ornamental appearance over functional mechanics in toy gun designs. These patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
- • U.S. Patent No. D973,790 S — ornamental toy gun design (Application No. 29/785,013)
- • U.S. Patent No. D973,791 S — related ornamental toy gun design (Application No. 29/786,384)
Launching a new product in the toy market?
Check if your product’s design might infringe existing design patents before going to market.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a **default judgment** against more than one hundred e-commerce defendants, awarding plaintiff Siu Shong Tsang **$50,000 in compensatory damages per defaulting defendant** for willful infringement. Key relief included a permanent injunction, domain name transfers/deactivations, asset freezes, and marketplace account suspensions.
Verdict Cause Analysis
The court’s jurisdictional finding emphasized that defendants established **minimum contacts** with Illinois by operating interactive e-commerce stores targeting U.S. consumers, offering Illinois shipping, and completing sales to Illinois residents. This reaffirms the broad reach of U.S. courts over foreign online sellers.
With all defendants defaulting, the **allegations of the Amended Complaint were deemed admitted**, and screenshot evidence sufficed to establish infringement. The willfulness finding, crucial for damages, was supported by defendants’ continued operation of infringing storefronts without engaging in the litigation.
Damages were awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which uniquely allows recovery of the infringer’s **total profits** from the sale of the article of manufacture bearing the infringing design, making design patents powerful enforcement tools in cases like this.
Industry & Competitive Implications
This case signifies escalating risks for global e-commerce in the toy sector and sets precedents for IP enforcement strategies:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation for your business.
- Identify key trends in Schedule A multi-defendant lawsuits
- Analyze jurisdictional reach over foreign online sellers
- Understand platform liability and compliance demands
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product before market entry.
- Input your product description or design features
- AI identifies potentially blocking design patents
- Receive actionable risk assessment reports
High Risk Area
Toy and Consumer Goods E-commerce
100+ Defendants
Targeted in multi-defendant action
Efficient Enforcement
Default judgment in 189 days
✅ Key Takeaways
Schedule A multi-defendant design patent litigation in N.D. Illinois remains highly efficient, with sub-200-day resolution achievable.
Search related case law →35 U.S.C. § 289 total profit disgorgement makes design patents strategically superior for product-level enforcement against infringers.
Explore design patent damages →Frequently Asked Questions
U.S. Design Patent Nos. D973,790 S (App. No. 29/785,013) and D973,791 S (App. No. 29/786,384), both covering ornamental toy gun designs.
No defendant answered or appeared within the permitted timeframe. Under FRCP 55, the court deemed all complaint allegations admitted and entered judgment for the plaintiff, including $50,000 per defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
It reinforces the viability of Schedule A enforcement actions against overseas e-commerce sellers and confirms that U.S. courts will assert jurisdiction and order third-party platform compliance in design patent cases.
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
- PACER (Case No. 1:23-cv-06614, N.D. Ill.)
- USPTO Patent Center
- 35 U.S.C. § 171 — Design patents
- 35 U.S.C. § 289 — Additional remedy for infringement of design patent
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950)
- Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
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.