Wicue USA Wins Default Judgment in LCD Writing Device Patent Case

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This case centered on **US Patent No. 11,143,898 B2** (Application No. US16/569568), entitled *”Multicolor Liquid Crystal Writing Device.”* This utility patent protects functional innovations in LCD-based writing board technology, specifically the mechanism enabling multi-color display.

• • US11143898B2 — Multicolor Liquid Crystal Writing Device technology

The Accused Products

The infringing products were multicolor liquid crystal writing devices sold through Amazon storefronts operated by the defendants. Plaintiff provided screenshot evidence demonstrating each seller’s willingness to ship infringing products to Illinois residents.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff was represented by **Faye Yifei Deng** and **Michael A. DiNardo** of **YK Law LLP** (Los Angeles, CA). No defense counsel appeared on behalf of any defendant.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

• **Filed:** September 26, 2024 — Northern District of Illinois, a court well-regarded for its streamlined handling of Schedule A patent and trademark matters.
• **Preliminary Injunction:** Granted early in proceedings, freezing defendant assets before judgment.
• **Service of Process:** Effectuated via electronic publication and email — a method the court expressly validated as “reasonably calculated” to provide notice under the circumstances.
• **Default Entered:** All defendants failed to appear or answer.
• **Final Judgment:** January 26, 2026.
• **Total Duration:** 487 days.

The 487-day timeline from filing to final judgment is notably efficient for patent litigation. The Schedule A default judgment framework, combined with early asset-freeze mechanisms through Amazon, enabled Wicue to secure both injunctive relief and damages without trial. The Northern District of Illinois has become a preferred venue for this type of enforcement action.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The court granted **Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment in full**, entering a permanent injunction and awarding reasonable royalty damages against all nine defaulting defendants. Total damages awarded:

Damages were awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 284 in the form of reasonable royalties calculated against each defendant’s infringing sales through their respective Amazon seller aliases.

Injunctive Relief

The permanent injunction is broad and operationally significant. It restrains defendants and all persons in active concert with them from importing, selling, manufacturing, storing, or distributing infringing products. Critically, it extends to **third-party service providers**, including **Amazon.com**, which was ordered to:

• Disable infringing seller accounts within seven days.
• Freeze and transfer restrained funds to plaintiff within fourteen days.
• Cease displaying associated advertisements.

This third-party enforcement mechanism — directing Amazon directly — is a defining feature of Schedule A litigation strategy and represents one of its most powerful practical tools.

Verdict Cause Analysis

Because no defendant appeared, the court’s findings were based on uncontroverted pleadings deemed admitted by default. The court established **personal jurisdiction** by finding that each defendant targeted Illinois consumers through Amazon storefronts that accepted U.S. dollar payments and offered Illinois shipping. Screenshot evidence submitted at Docket No. 7 confirmed each store’s interactive commercial presence.

The court found defendants liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for direct patent infringement of the ‘898 Patent. No invalidity challenge, claim construction dispute, or non-infringement defense was raised.

Legal Significance

This case reinforces several important doctrines for **multicolor liquid crystal writing device patent infringement** litigation:

1. Electronic service is valid against anonymous overseas e-commerce operators when traditional service is impracticable, provided adequate notice is reasonably calculated.
2. Personal jurisdiction over foreign sellers is established by commercial targeting of U.S. consumers through interactive Amazon storefronts.
3. Reasonable royalty damages under § 284 are appropriate even in default settings, calculated from actual sales data available through Amazon.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Holders: The Schedule A framework — combining early TRO/preliminary injunction with Amazon account freezes — is an effective enforcement model against anonymous infringers. Securing a registered utility patent (rather than relying solely on design patents or trade dress) provides a stronger basis for damages calculations and permanent injunctive relief.

For Accused Infringers: Failure to respond to a complaint, even by anonymous overseas sellers, results in full admission of all allegations, permanent injunctions, and asset seizure. Sellers offering products in technology-adjacent categories should conduct proactive freedom-to-operate (FTO) analyses before listing on U.S. platforms.

For R&D Teams: Products incorporating LCD writing technology — particularly multicolor variants — should be assessed against US11143898B2 before entering the U.S. market. Design-around strategies focused on alternative display mechanisms may mitigate infringement risk.