Wang v. Exgreem Trading: Default Judgment & Permanent Injunction in Rotating Decoration Patent Case
Plaintiffs Xiaobing Wang and Lianqing Li secured a default judgment against Exgreem Trading Inc. and a class of unnamed online marketplace sellers for willful infringement of US7827711B2, covering automatic rotating decoration products. The Illinois Northern District Court awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages, attorney fees, and a sweeping permanent injunction across major e-commerce platforms — all within 244 days of filing.
Default judgment halts e-commerce infringement of rotating decoration patent
On September 7, 2023, plaintiffs Xiaobing Wang and Lianqing Li filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:23-cv-07716) against Exgreem Trading Inc. and a broad class of unnamed entities and individuals identified in Annex A. The action alleged willful infringement of US7827711B2, a patent covering automatic rotating decoration products, through unauthorized sales on major online marketplaces including Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Wish.com, and DHgate. The case was assigned to Judge John F. Kness.
The defendants failed to appear or respond, resulting in a default judgment entered on May 8, 2024 — just 244 days after filing. The court awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (applying once across all defaulting defendants), attorney fees under § 285, and a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from manufacturing, marketing, selling, or distributing infringing products. The court further ordered domain registrars and third-party payment processors — including PayPal, Alibaba, and Amazon Pay — to transfer or freeze defendants’ assets and disable associated online accounts within seven calendar days.
The 244-day resolution is notably swift and reflects the default judgment pathway rather than contested litigation. The breadth of the injunction — spanning domain registrars, online marketplaces, and payment processors — is consistent with standard practice in N.D. Illinois e-commerce enforcement actions. What remains unknown from the public record is the identities and full scope of the Annex A defendants, the amount of attorney fees ultimately awarded, and whether any defendants later moved to vacate the default. The $10,000 cash bond posted by plaintiffs was ordered returned upon entry of judgment.
Filing to Injunction Granted in 244 days
244 days — resolved faster than the median N.D. Illinois patent case (~18 months), driven by default judgment procedure
Default judgment explained: what the permanent injunction means for both parties
Default judgment: defendants failed to appear
A default judgment is entered when defendants fail to respond to a complaint. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and may award injunctive relief and damages without a full trial on the merits. Here, Judge Kness entered default, then issued a permanent injunction and compensatory damages under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285. Defendants have limited recourse unless they can demonstrate good cause to vacate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c).
Rule 55 default judgmentPlaintiffs secured injunction, damages, and asset freeze
Wang and Li obtained maximum practical relief: a permanent injunction covering all major e-commerce platforms, a $50,000 compensatory damages award, attorney fees, domain transfer or disablement, and a court-ordered freeze and release of defendants’ funds held by PayPal, Alibaba, Wish.com, and Amazon Pay. The ongoing authority under Rule 69 to commence supplemental proceedings gives plaintiffs continued enforcement leverage.
Full injunctive relief obtainedDefaulting sellers face platform-wide enforcement
Defaulting defendants — including Exgreem Trading Inc. and the Annex A entities — face permanent injunction, asset freezes across all identified payment accounts, and domain disablement. Any defendant wishing to contest must move to vacate the default under Rule 55(c), demonstrating good cause, a meritorious defense, and absence of prejudice to plaintiff. The broad class definition in Annex A suggests this action targeted a network of related online sellers.
Assets frozen; accounts disabledE-commerce sellers face coordinated IP enforcement risk
This case is consistent with a pattern of coordinated IP enforcement actions in N.D. Illinois targeting anonymous e-commerce seller networks. The use of Annex A to capture multiple defendants in a single action, combined with third-party processor and registrar orders, creates a scalable enforcement template. Sellers of decorative or novelty products on Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, and similar platforms should treat this outcome as a signal that default risk is real and remedies are immediate.
E-commerce platform enforcement templateFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Xiaobing Wang | Individual | Patent holders of US7827711B2 — automatic rotating decoration product inventorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Liagnqing Li | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A | Individual | Exgreem Trading Inc. and unnamed e-commerce sellers alleged to sell infringing rotating decoration productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Exgreem Trading Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ge Lei | Attorney | Counsel for Xiaobing WangSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Getech Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Xiaobing WangSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John F. Kness | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment verdict in Case 1:23-cv-07716 is notably broad in both scope and mechanism. The court issued a permanent injunction covering all major e-commerce platforms, required third-party registrars and payment processors to act within seven calendar days, and awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages plus attorney fees under §§ 284 and 285. The willful infringement finding — made without contest — supports the fee award and strengthens the injunction’s permanence. Because no defendants appeared, the merits were not contested; any future challenge would require a motion to vacate the default under Rule 55(c), a high bar in this circuit.
US7827711B2 — Automatic Rotating Decoration Device
US7827711B2 (application number US11/905632) covers an automatic rotating decoration product — a mechanically animated decorative device designed for autonomous rotational display. The patent is held by plaintiffs Xiaobing Wang and Lianqing Li, who asserted it against a network of e-commerce sellers distributing unauthorized reproductions. The application number suggests filing in the mid-to-late 2000s timeframe, consistent with a utility patent that has since issued and been actively enforced. The technical domain sits at the intersection of decorative goods manufacturing and mechanical motion mechanisms.
In the context of global e-commerce, patents covering consumer decorative products face persistent infringement risk from anonymous online sellers, particularly those operating through Chinese cross-border e-commerce platforms such as AliExpress, DHgate, and Amazon third-party marketplaces. US7827711B2 is strategically significant because its enforcement in N.D. Illinois demonstrates that even utility patents in the consumer novelty and decoration space can support broad injunctive relief and asset recovery. Competitors and distributors in the automated decorative display segment should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO against US7827711B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing automatic rotating or mechanically animated decoration products — particularly those sold through Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Wish.com, or DHgate — should assess their exposure to US7827711B2. This patent has been enforced aggressively via default judgment, and the Annex A structure means enforcement can target broad seller networks simultaneously. Product teams developing motorised or rotating display items for seasonal, holiday, or retail decoration markets should commission an FTO review before launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US7827711B2’s claim scope against your product design, identify prior art that may limit enforceability, and flag related patents in the automatic rotating decoration space. Eureka also tracks litigation history linked to specific patents, so your IP team can assess whether this patent is part of a wider enforcement programme. Run a targeted FTO in minutes — not weeks — before committing to a product launch or distribution agreement in this category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7827711B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: automatic decoration & e-commerce enforcement in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable patent infringement default judgments involving consumer decoration products and anonymous e-commerce seller networks in the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the decorative products IP enforcement landscape
This default judgment reinforces N.D. Illinois as an effective venue for coordinated e-commerce IP enforcement against anonymous sellers.
N.D. Illinois default judgment playbook is proven and fast
Wang v. Exgreem resolved in 244 days via default — well under the district’s typical contested patent timeline. For patent holders whose IP is being infringed across multiple anonymous online storefronts, this default judgment pathway combined with third-party processor orders offers rapid, broad-based relief without costly trial proceedings.
Third-party asset freeze orders create immediate commercial disruption
The court’s seven-day asset freeze orders directed at PayPal, Amazon Pay, Alibaba, and Wish.com demonstrate that e-commerce payment processor cooperation is now a standard enforcement lever in N.D. Illinois. Sellers operating across multiple platforms under related accounts face simultaneous freezes upon entry of judgment, limiting their ability to shift proceeds.
Wang v Entities — key questions answered
The court entered a default judgment in favour of plaintiffs Xiaobing Wang and Lianqing Li on May 8, 2024. The judgment included a permanent injunction against all defaulting defendants, $50,000 in compensatory damages for willful infringement of US7827711B2, attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and orders directing payment processors and domain registrars to freeze assets and disable accounts within seven calendar days.
US7827711B2 covers an automatic rotating decoration product — a mechanically animated decorative device. It was asserted in this case against a network of e-commerce sellers allegedly selling unauthorised reproductions through platforms including Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Wish.com, and DHgate. The plaintiffs are the named inventors and patent holders who pursued enforcement directly.
In N.D. Illinois, plaintiffs in e-commerce infringement cases commonly file against a large number of anonymous or related defendants listed in a sealed or attached Annex A schedule. This allows a single filing to target an entire network of online marketplace sellers. The court can issue broad injunctions and asset freeze orders covering all listed defendants simultaneously, making it a highly efficient enforcement mechanism for patent holders.
Judge Kness ordered third-party payment processors — including PayPal, Alibaba, Amazon Pay, Alipay, Ant Financial, and Wish.com — and domain registrars including GoDaddy, Namecheap, and Name.com to freeze defendants’ accounts and either transfer or disable defendant domain names within seven calendar days of receiving the order. Existing frozen funds were ordered released to plaintiffs as partial satisfaction of the $50,000 damages award.
Yes, but the bar is high. A defendant who failed to appear may move to vacate the default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), which requires showing good cause, a meritorious defence, and that vacating would not unduly prejudice the plaintiff. In the Seventh Circuit, courts consider whether the defendant acted promptly after learning of the judgment. Given the willfulness finding and broad asset freeze, any successful vacatur motion would need to address both procedural and substantive grounds.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.