Waying Technology v. Can Glass Inc.: Design Patent Default Judgment in 140 Days
Waying Technology Development Co., Limited brought a design patent action against Can Glass Inc. in the Southern District of New York, asserting two USD design patents over Amazon-listed glassware products. With no defense filed, the court granted default judgment for the plaintiff in just 140 days — a swift resolution consistent with uncontested IP enforcement.
A swift default win in a glassware design patent Amazon enforcement action
On June 3, 2024, Waying Technology Development Co., Limited filed suit against Can Glass Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:24-cv-04209), asserting infringement of two U.S. design patents — USD0979426S (App. No. 29/829032) and USD0977994S (App. No. 29/840668) — covering ornamental designs for glassware products. The accused products were identified by seven Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs), suggesting enforcement targeted online retail listings.
The case closed on October 21, 2024, just 140 days after filing, via default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Default judgment arises when a defendant fails to appear or respond to the complaint; the court, having found the procedural prerequisites satisfied, directed entry of judgment for Waying Technology and ordered the case closed. No defense counsel filed an appearance on behalf of Can Glass Inc., leaving the defendant’s position entirely uncontested.
The 140-day timeline is consistent with uncontested default proceedings rather than substantive litigation. The absence of any defense counsel or responsive pleading from Can Glass Inc. likely reflects either a deliberate decision not to contest the claims or an inability to mount a defense — a pattern often observed in enforcement actions targeting smaller Amazon marketplace sellers. The public record does not disclose the terms of any injunction, damages award, or consent order accompanying the default judgment.
Filing to Default Judgment in 140 days
140 days to default judgment — faster than the S.D.N.Y. median contested patent case
Default judgment entered: what this means for both parties
Default judgment: defendant’s silence becomes plaintiff’s victory
A default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 is entered when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend against a complaint. The court accepts the well-pleaded factual allegations as true and, upon plaintiff’s motion, enters judgment. Here, Can Glass Inc. filed no appearance, triggering the default process. This is a procedural win — it does not reflect a merits adjudication of patent validity or infringement scope.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 defaultWaying Technology secures judgment without a contested trial
Waying Technology obtained judgment on both asserted design patents without needing to prove infringement at trial. The ruling validates the enforceability posture of USD0979426S and USD0977994S, at least procedurally. However, because no invalidity or non-infringement defense was tested, the patents’ substantive scope remains legally untested. The judgment may support takedown requests or further enforcement against the specific ASINs identified.
Judgment for plaintiffCan Glass Inc. faces judgment with no record defense
Can Glass Inc. has a judgment entered against it without any merits adjudication in its favor. The defendant retains the right to move to set aside the default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) if it can demonstrate good cause, excusable neglect, or a meritorious defense — but absent such a motion, the judgment stands and may be enforced. The seven identified Amazon ASINs are directly implicated by this outcome.
Default — no defense on recordAmazon design patent enforcement: a signal to marketplace sellers
This case is consistent with a broader enforcement pattern in which design patent holders pursue Amazon marketplace sellers via federal court rather than solely relying on Amazon’s Brand Registry process. A default judgment can accelerate ASIN takedowns and deter similar listings. Sellers operating in competitive glassware or homeware categories on Amazon should treat unresponded IP complaints as creating significant default judgment risk given the speed of this resolution.
Amazon marketplace IP enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Waying Technology Development Co., Limited | Company | IP-holding glassware design company — holder of USD0979426S and USD0977994SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Can Glass Inc. | Company | Can Glass Inc. — accused Amazon marketplace glassware product sellerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John H. Choi | Attorney | Counsel for Waying Technology Development Co., LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tong Jin | Attorney | Counsel for Waying Technology Development Co., LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | John H. Choi & Associates LLC | Law Firm | Representing Waying Technology Development Co., LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Waying Technology Development Co., LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is procedural in nature — it reflects Can Glass Inc.’s failure to appear rather than a merits determination on infringement or patent validity. The direction to ‘enter judgment for Plaintiff’ confirms a binding, enforceable ruling. Notably, the order does not articulate specific damages, injunctive terms, or fee awards in the available record, suggesting those details may be embedded in a separate judgment document or were not publicly docketed in full.
USD0979426S & USD0977994S — Ornamental glassware product designs
USD0979426S (App. No. 29/829032) and USD0977994S (App. No. 29/840668) are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of glassware products. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture. The ‘USD’ prefix designates a granted design patent, while the ’29/’ application series is the standard USPTO filing classification for design applications. These patents appear to cover specific aesthetic features of glass consumer goods sold in the homeware and kitchenware categories.
In the Amazon marketplace context, design patents are powerful enforcement instruments because infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — whether an ordinary consumer would find the accused product substantially similar in overall visual appearance. With seven ASINs identified as accused products, Waying Technology’s portfolio suggests a deliberate strategy to protect distinctive product aesthetics against copycat listings. Competitors and OEM suppliers in the glassware space should audit their own product designs against the claimed ornamental features in these two patents.
Should you run an FTO against USD0979426S and USD0977994S?
Any company designing, importing, or listing glassware products on Amazon or other e-commerce platforms should consider whether their product’s ornamental appearance could be deemed substantially similar to the designs claimed in USD0979426S or USD0977994S. Given Waying Technology’s demonstrated willingness to pursue federal litigation — including to default judgment — in the Southern District of New York, the enforcement risk is real and the timeline to judgment can be under five months.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product teams and IP counsel to map the ornamental claim scope of both design patents against candidate product designs, identify prior art that might support invalidity arguments, and monitor Waying Technology’s broader design patent portfolio for newly filed applications in adjacent glassware categories. Proactive clearance before launch reduces the risk of ASIN-targeted enforcement actions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0979426S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Amazon design patent enforcement cases in S.D.N.Y.
Cases involving design patent enforcement against Amazon marketplace sellers in the Southern District of New York, including default judgment outcomes in glassware and consumer products.
What this case signals for the glassware design patent IP landscape
This S.D.N.Y. default judgment illustrates how design patent holders are using federal courts to enforce against Amazon marketplace sellers at speed.
Default judgment as an enforcement tool against marketplace sellers
Patent holders asserting design rights against Amazon sellers are increasingly obtaining default judgments when defendants fail to appear. This case resolved in 140 days — significantly faster than contested patent litigation. Companies monitoring competitor product listings should note that non-response to a complaint carries severe consequences, including enforceable judgments.
Two design patents, seven ASINs: the anatomy of a targeted enforcement action
Waying Technology’s strategy of citing specific Amazon ASINs in its complaint is a precise enforcement mechanism. It enables direct marketplace takedown requests backed by a federal judgment. Design patent holders in consumer product categories should consider whether their portfolio covers the specific ornamental features distinguishing their Amazon listings from competitors.
Waying v Can — key questions answered
The Southern District of New York entered a default judgment in favor of plaintiff Waying Technology Development Co., Limited on October 21, 2024. Can Glass Inc. did not appear or file any defense, and the court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, directing the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
Waying Technology asserted two U.S. design patents: USD0979426S (application no. 29/829032) and USD0977994S (application no. 29/840668). Both are design patents covering the ornamental appearance of glassware products. Seven specific Amazon ASINs were identified as the accused infringing products.
A default judgment means the court entered a binding ruling against Can Glass Inc. without any merits adjudication, solely because the defendant failed to respond to the complaint. Can Glass Inc. may seek to set aside the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) by showing good cause or a meritorious defense, but absent such a motion, the judgment is enforceable.
The publicly available docket record does not specify the damages amount or injunctive relief terms granted alongside the default judgment. The court’s order directed entry of judgment for plaintiff but specific monetary or injunctive terms are not detailed in the available case record.
The case was filed on June 3, 2024 and closed on October 21, 2024 — a total of 140 days. This is consistent with the typical timeline for uncontested default judgment proceedings in federal district court, which move substantially faster than contested patent litigation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.