Weiming Sun v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Retractable Water Bottle Design Patent
Plaintiff Weiming Sun obtained a permanent injunction and default monetary judgment against a group of anonymous e-commerce sellers for infringing U.S. Design Patent No. D 871,839, covering a retractable water bottle design. The case resolved in 173 days via default judgment after defendants failed to appear, triggering asset restraints across Amazon, PayPal, Walmart, and eBay.
E-commerce design patent default: injunction and asset freeze across major platforms
Filed on 2 October 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Virginia M. Kendall, this action was brought by individual inventor Weiming Sun against an anonymous group of online sellers — a ‘Schedule A’ structure commonly used in e-commerce IP enforcement. The asserted patent, U.S. Design Patent No. D 871,839 (App. No. 29/674,862), covers the ornamental design of a retractable water bottle. Defendants operated storefronts across major marketplace platforms including Amazon, PayPal, eBay, and Walmart.
The case closed on 24 March 2025 via default judgment — entered because the identified defendants failed to appear or respond. Judge Kendall issued a permanent injunction barring the defaulting defendants from making, using, selling, importing, or offering to sell products that practice the D 871,839 patent. Critically, financial institutions and marketplace platforms were ordered to apply previously restrained funds toward satisfying the monetary damages set out in Exhibit 2, effectively converting pre-judgment asset freezes into enforceable payment.
At 173 days from filing to close, the timeline is consistent with a well-executed Schedule A campaign where defendants are expected not to appear. The default outcome — while procedurally routine in this enforcement strategy — nonetheless delivers a permanent, court-ordered bar on infringing listings and direct fund recovery from marketplace escrow accounts. What remains unknown from the public record is the aggregate monetary value of damages awarded in Exhibit 2 and the precise number of seller IDs named in Schedule A.
Filing to Default Judgment in 173 days
173 days — faster than the median N.D. Illinois IP case, driven by default judgment procedure
Default judgment entered: permanent injunction and asset execution against Schedule A sellers
Default judgment: what it means and how it was triggered
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond. Here, all Schedule A defendants failed to contest the action, allowing Judge Kendall to accept Sun’s allegations as admitted. This is a standard and intentional outcome in Schedule A enforcement campaigns — plaintiffs file, serve through alternative means, and proceed to judgment when sellers remain silent. The court retains discretion on damages, which were itemised in Exhibit 2.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) defaultSun secures permanent injunction and direct fund recovery
Weiming Sun obtained the fullest available civil relief: a permanent injunction prohibiting any future infringement of D 871,839, plus an order directing marketplace platforms — Amazon, PayPal, eBay, Walmart — to apply already-frozen funds toward satisfying the damages award. This dual outcome (injunctive relief plus asset execution) is the primary commercial goal of Schedule A litigation. The injunction is limited to listings specifically using Sun’s design patent, not defendants’ entire stores.
Permanent injunction grantedDefaulting sellers face permanent ban and frozen-asset execution
Each defaulting defendant is permanently enjoined from selling, importing, or offering any product that practices D 871,839. Additionally, their assets held by marketplace platforms and payment processors are subject to immediate execution to satisfy the damages award. Because defendants did not appear, they forfeited any opportunity to contest validity, non-infringement, or damages quantum. Re-listing the infringing product under new seller IDs would constitute contempt of court.
Assets seized via platform freezeSchedule A enforcement: a repeatable playbook for consumer product design patents
This outcome illustrates the efficiency of Schedule A design patent litigation for consumer product inventors. By combining a preliminary injunction (asset freeze) with a default judgment (fund execution), a single plaintiff can neutralise dozens of infringing storefronts and recover damages without trial. For e-commerce sellers in the consumer goods space, it signals that design patents on even simple product forms — such as a retractable water bottle — carry real enforcement risk across all major platforms.
E-commerce IP enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Weiming Sun | Individual | Individual inventor and design patent holder — holder of USD D871,839 (retractable water bottle)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified in Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers operating across Amazon, eBay, Walmart, and PayPal storefrontsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Michael Dewitty | Attorney | Counsel for Weiming SunSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dewitty And Associates, Chtd. | Law Firm | Representing Weiming SunSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Virginia M. Kendall | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order is notably precise in its scope: the permanent injunction expressly applies only to listings using Sun’s design patent, not to the entirety of any defendant’s e-commerce store — a scoping limitation that reflects judicial practice in Schedule A cases to avoid overbroad relief. The asset execution mechanism, directing financial intermediaries to convert preliminary injunction freezes into damages satisfaction, is a well-established N.D. Illinois procedural device. The denial of ‘all relief not granted’ forecloses any supplemental recovery not already specified.
USD D871,839 — Ornamental design for a retractable water bottle
U.S. Design Patent No. D 871,839 (Application No. 29/674,862) protects the ornamental appearance of a retractable water bottle. Design patents in the U.S. cover only the non-functional, visual characteristics of a product — the shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation as depicted in the patent’s drawings. Protection under a design patent is assessed using the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary person familiar with the prior art would perceive the accused design as substantially the same as the patented design.
In the high-volume consumer goods market, retractable and collapsible water bottles are sold by hundreds of third-party sellers across Amazon and similar platforms. A design patent on this product category creates a meaningful enforcement perimeter — particularly where sellers source similar-looking products from shared manufacturers, as is common in the Amazon marketplace ecosystem. The D 871,839 patent, enforced through Schedule A litigation, demonstrates that a single design registration can generate IP leverage disproportionate to the cost of obtaining it.
Should you run an FTO against USD D871,839?
Any company, brand, or individual seller marketing retractable, collapsible, or telescoping water bottles — particularly on Amazon, eBay, Walmart, or other marketplace platforms — should assess whether their product’s ornamental design falls within the scope of D 871,839. Given the default judgment and permanent injunction issued in this case, the patent has demonstrated active enforcement. The ordinary observer test means visual similarity, not mechanical identity, is the operative standard.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product teams and IP counsel to run a structured clearance search against D 871,839 and related design patent families. Eureka can surface visually similar design patents, identify the prosecution history of App. No. 29/674,862, and flag co-pending applications that may extend protection. For sellers currently active on major platforms, this analysis should be treated as a pre-listing compliance step — not a post-injunction reactive measure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0871839S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois consumer goods litigation
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent enforcement actions involving consumer products litigated in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Kendall and peers.
What this case signals for the consumer product design patent IP landscape
Schedule A default judgments are reshaping how individual inventors enforce design patents against mass e-commerce infringers.
Platform asset freezes are now a primary enforcement tool for design patent holders
The court’s order directing Amazon, PayPal, eBay, and Walmart to apply frozen funds toward damages demonstrates that marketplace infrastructure itself has become a lever in IP enforcement. Design patent holders with even modest resources can execute a full recovery strategy without defendants ever appearing. Sellers operating on these platforms face account-level financial risk from any pending Schedule A action.
Design patents on consumer products carry disproportionate enforcement power
U.S. Design Patent D 871,839 covers the ornamental appearance of a retractable water bottle — a product sold at high volume by numerous third-party sellers. A single design patent, if registered and actively monitored, can support a multi-defendant enforcement campaign delivering permanent injunctions and direct financial recovery. R&D and product teams should treat design patent filing as a core commercialisation step, not an afterthought.
Sun v Partnerships — key questions answered
The case closed on 24 March 2025 with a default judgment in favour of plaintiff Weiming Sun. Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the Northern District of Illinois entered a permanent injunction barring all defaulting defendants from making, selling, importing, or offering products that practice U.S. Design Patent No. D 871,839, and ordered marketplace platforms to apply frozen funds toward the damages award set out in Exhibit 2.
D 871,839 (Application No. 29/674,862) protects the ornamental design — the non-functional visual appearance — of a retractable water bottle. Design patent protection in the U.S. is assessed under the ordinary observer test: infringement is found where an ordinary observer would believe the accused product’s design is substantially the same as the patented design.
A Schedule A lawsuit is a multi-defendant patent enforcement action commonly filed in N.D. Illinois in which a single plaintiff names dozens or hundreds of anonymous e-commerce sellers, identified only by their marketplace seller IDs, in a schedule attached to the complaint. Plaintiffs typically seek a preliminary injunction to freeze defendants’ marketplace accounts and funds, then proceed to default judgment if defendants fail to appear. This structure enables efficient enforcement against dispersed online infringers.
The court’s order references damages amounts set out in Exhibit 2, with each defaulting defendant individually liable for a specified sum. The public record does not disclose the precise methodology or total aggregate, which is typical in Schedule A default judgments. Per-defendant amounts in comparable cases are commonly derived from estimated marketplace sales volumes or statutory damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which allows disgorgement of a defendant’s total profit on articles infringing a design patent.
Yes, in principle. A defaulting defendant may seek to vacate a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) by demonstrating, among other things, excusable neglect, a meritorious defence, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff. In practice, courts in the Northern District of Illinois scrutinise such motions carefully in Schedule A cases, and success is not guaranteed — particularly where the defendant had actual notice of the proceedings or where significant time has elapsed since the judgment.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.