Wang Pengfei v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in 80 Days
Wang Pengfei, holder of three patents covering a wrapping paper cutting tool, obtained a default judgment against a slate of anonymous online marketplace sellers accused of willful infringement. The Northern District of Illinois entered permanent injunctions and ordered financial accounts frozen within just 80 days of filing.
A Schedule A patent enforcement sweep ends in swift default victory
On November 12, 2024, Wang Pengfei filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-11650) against an unnamed roster of online marketplace operators identified on Schedule A. The complaint alleged willful infringement of two utility patents — US12091276B1 and US12090678B1 — and one design patent, USD0985353S, all covering a wrapping paper cutting tool sold under the Pengfei brand.
The case closed on January 31, 2025, via default judgment, consistent with the Schedule A enforcement model where overseas defendants fail to appear. Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins entered a permanent injunction barring defendants from using the Pengfei IP on any non-authorized product and ordered third-party payment processors — including PayPal, Amazon Pay, Alipay, and Alibaba — to freeze and remit funds held in defendants’ accounts up to the awarded damages amount within seven and fourteen calendar days, respectively.
The 80-day resolution is consistent with — and at the faster end of — Schedule A default timelines in N.D. Ill., suggesting no defendant mounted any appearance or procedural challenge. The public record does not disclose the aggregate damages quantum from Schedule A; individual per-defendant awards are listed in the attached schedule rather than in the public order text. What drove the outcome was likely the combination of strong IP registrations, pre-suit account restraints, and the structural inability of anonymous marketplace defendants to mount a defense.
Filing to Default Judgment in 80 days
80 days — faster than median Schedule A default proceedings in N.D. Ill.
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: liability without a contested hearing
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and proceeds to relief. Here, Judge Jenkins applied 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 284, 289 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117 to award damages for willful infringement — bypassing any merits dispute. The permanent injunction and account-freeze orders flow directly from that uncontested liability finding.
Liability uncontestedPengfei secures injunction and direct asset recovery
Wang Pengfei obtained a permanent injunction covering all three asserted patents and direct disbursement of frozen marketplace funds as partial satisfaction of damages. The order extends to all platforms — eBay, Amazon, AliExpress, Wish.com, DHgate — and binds any third party with actual notice, giving Pengfei broad enforcement reach across the major e-commerce channels where knock-off cutting tools typically circulate.
Broad injunctive reliefFrozen accounts and permanent marketplace bans
Defaulting defendants face permanent injunctions barring any further sale of products bearing the Pengfei IP, mandatory account disablement by platform operators, and asset seizure up to the per-defendant damages award. Supplemental Rule 69 proceedings remain available to Pengfei for any shortfall, meaning defendants remain exposed to further collection action even after judgment entry.
Ongoing collection riskA reinforced enforcement template for consumer product IP
This outcome reinforces the viability of the Schedule A model for small-brand consumer product IP owners: file, restrain accounts pre-judgment, and obtain default relief within weeks. For competing sellers and product designers in the gift-wrap and paper craft accessories space, all three Pengfei patents now carry an active injunction, raising the practical risk of any product that reads on the cutting tool claims — whether in function or ornamental design.
Schedule A model validatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Wang Pengfei | Individual | Consumer product IP holder — owner of US12091276B1, USD0985353S, and US12090678B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified collectively on Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew L. De Preter | Attorney | Counsel for Wang PengfeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sofia Quezada Hastings | Attorney | Counsel for Wang PengfeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Aronberg, Goldgehn, Davis & Garmisa | Law Firm | Representing Wang PengfeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order is sweeping in scope: permanent injunctions, platform-level account disablement, and direct remittance of frozen funds are all ordered concurrently. The citation of §§ 271, 284, and 289 alongside 15 U.S.C. § 1117 suggests the court accepted a multi-statute damages framework, consistent with willful infringement findings in uncontested Schedule A matters. Because no defendant appeared, the damages quantum per defendant is set out in the non-public Schedule A attachment rather than the public order — the precise aggregate value is not publicly disclosed.
US12091276B1, USD0985353S & US12090678B1 — Wrapping Paper Cutting Tool
The three asserted patents — US12091276B1 and US12090678B1 (utility, filed under application nos. US18/520088 and US18/539909 respectively) and USD0985353S (design, application no. US29/883671) — collectively protect both the functional mechanism and ornamental appearance of Wang Pengfei’s wrapping paper cutting tool. The back-to-back utility application numbers suggest a continuation or closely related family, potentially protecting incremental functional improvements over a common priority date.
In the gift-wrap accessories market, wrapping paper cutters occupy a competitive, high-volume SKU category on major e-commerce platforms, making them a frequent target for low-cost counterfeit manufacturing. Holding both utility and design protection simultaneously is strategically significant: design patents block visually similar copies even where a competitor’s functional design differs slightly from the utility claims. For any manufacturer or importer in the paper craft accessories space, this patent family represents a live enforcement risk backed by a court-issued injunction.
Should you run an FTO against US12091276B1, USD0985353S, and US12090678B1?
Any business designing, sourcing, importing, or selling wrapping paper cutting tools — particularly through Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Wish.com, or DHgate — should treat these three patents as active risk assets. The injunction entered in this case binds not only named defendants but any third party with actual notice of the order, which includes platform operators. A product that resembles the Pengfei cutter in form (design patent) or function (utility patents) may be exposed even if sold under a different brand name.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US12091276B1, USD0985353S, and US12090678B1 against your product specifications in minutes, flagging overlap risk across both utility and design dimensions. Eureka also surfaces related continuation filings and pending applications in the same family, ensuring your FTO analysis accounts for future enforcement vectors — not just the three patents already asserted in this case.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12091276B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent default cases: wrapping & consumer tools
Explore comparable Schedule A default judgment cases in the Northern District of Illinois involving consumer product utility and design patents in the gift and packaging accessories sector.
What this case signals for the consumer product IP enforcement landscape
This case illustrates how small-brand IP holders can use Schedule A proceedings to neutralise marketplace infringement at scale and speed.
Dual utility + design patent stacking maximises default relief scope
Asserting two utility patents alongside a design patent gives plaintiffs overlapping damages bases under §§ 284, 289, and the Lanham Act. In default proceedings where damages are not contested, this stacking strategy typically results in higher per-defendant awards and broader injunctive language — as seen here.
Third-party payment processor orders are the real enforcement lever
The operative relief in Schedule A defaults is rarely the injunction itself — it is the freeze-and-remit order against PayPal, Amazon Pay, Alipay, and Alibaba. Pengfei’s order requires fund transfer within 14 days, converting a paper judgment into real asset recovery without chasing anonymous defendants.
Pengfei v Partnerships — key questions answered
Wang Pengfei asserted three patents: utility patents US12091276B1 (application US18/520088) and US12090678B1 (application US18/539909), and design patent USD0985353S (application US29/883671). All three cover a wrapping paper cutting tool.
The case was terminated by default judgment on January 31, 2025. The defaulting defendants failed to appear or respond, and Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins entered a permanent injunction, asset freeze, and damages award consistent with willful infringement findings under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 284, 289 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
The injunction order names eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Amazon, Wish.com (ContextLogic), and DHgate as platforms subject to account-disablement requirements. Payment processors PayPal, Alipay, Alibaba, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay were ordered to freeze and remit defendants’ funds within 7–14 days of receiving the order.
The case resolved in 80 days — filed November 12, 2024 and closed January 31, 2025. This is consistent with, and at the faster end of, Schedule A default proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois, suggesting no defendant entered an appearance or filed any responsive pleading.
The order binds ‘all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with’ the defaulting defendants, and third parties with actual notice. While sellers not named in Schedule A are not directly bound, Pengfei retains authority under Rule 69 to commence supplemental proceedings to identify and pursue additional accounts, which may implicate related marketplace operators.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.