Xiamen Zhaozhao v. SuZhou XiongXiaoDou: Default Judgment & Permanent Injunction
Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co. sued a Chinese competitor for infringing two US design patents covering cat houses, asserting patents D955,550 and D958,465. After 767 days, Judge James Donato entered default judgment and a permanent injunction — the defendant never appeared in the case.
Chinese design patent dispute ends in sweeping injunction after defendant no-show
Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd., a Chinese trading company holding US design patents D955,550 and D958,465 covering cat house products, filed suit on August 29, 2022 in the Northern District of California against SuZhou XiongXiaoDou PinPai WenHua ChuanBo YouXian Gongsi. The complaint alleged that the defendant was offering, selling, and importing into the United States cat houses that infringed Zhaozhao’s registered design patents. Both patents relate to the ornamental design of pet houses for cats.
The case resolved on October 4, 2024, when Judge James Donato adopted Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore’s report and recommendation in full, entering default judgment under FRCP 55(b)(2) and issuing a permanent injunction. The injunction bars the defendant — along with its parent companies, subsidiaries, and agents — from making, using, importing, distributing, or selling any product falling within the scope of either asserted patent in or to the United States. No objections to the magistrate’s report were filed within the permitted period.
The 767-day duration likely reflects procedural steps required to establish adequate service of process on a foreign defendant, a threshold issue the magistrate’s report addressed at length before reaching the merits. The public record is silent on whether any licensing discussions occurred. Because the defendant never appeared, the infringement allegations were deemed admitted by default, and the Eitel v. McCool factors weighed in plaintiff’s favour — a pattern consistent with cross-border e-commerce IP enforcement actions targeting Chinese sellers.
Filing to Default Judgment in 767 days
767 days — longer than the median N.D. California default judgment IP case
Default judgment entered: what the permanent injunction means for both parties
Default judgment under FRCP 55(b)(2) — what it means
When a defendant fails to appear or respond, a plaintiff may seek default judgment. Under FRCP 55(b)(2), a court evaluates well-pleaded allegations as admitted and applies the Eitel v. McCool factors to assess whether judgment is warranted. Here, the court found all factors favoured Zhaozhao, including the substantive merits of the infringement claim and the risk of prejudice if relief were denied. The defendant retains a narrow right to move to set aside the default, but that window narrows with time.
FRCP 55(b)(2) default judgmentZhaozhao secures a broad, US-wide permanent injunction
The injunction is sweeping in scope: it covers not just the named defendant but all related entities and agents acting in concert. The defendant is permanently barred from any act of making, using, importing, distributing, selling, or offering to sell infringing cat houses in the US. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the order. For Zhaozhao, this provides a strong enforcement instrument against the specific defendant and potentially against affiliated storefronts or distributors.
Permanent injunction grantedDefendant in default: injunction applies, appeal window remains
SuZhou XiongXiaoDou never appeared in the case, meaning it forfeited the opportunity to contest infringement, challenge patent validity, or contest jurisdiction. The default judgment stands unless the defendant moves to set it aside and demonstrates good cause under FRCP 55(c). The court’s order explicitly notes this option remains available. However, any US e-commerce or import activities by the defendant or its agents are now subject to contempt proceedings.
Defendant may move to vacateCross-border design patent enforcement: a warning for e-commerce sellers
This case is consistent with a broader enforcement trend in which US-based or US-patent-holding Chinese companies pursue design patent infringement claims against competing Chinese sellers targeting the US market. Default judgments with permanent injunctions are an effective and relatively low-cost enforcement tool when defendants decline to engage. Sellers of pet products — particularly cat houses with distinctive ornamental designs — should treat registered US design patents as a live commercial risk requiring FTO analysis before launch.
Cross-border IP enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese trading company — holder of design patents D955,550 and D958,465 for cat housesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | SuZhou XiongXiaoDou PinPai WenHua ChuanBo YouXian Gongsi | Individual | Chinese brand and cultural communication company alleged to sell infringing cat house products in the USSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Jeanchung Tsai | Attorney | Counsel for Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Steger | Attorney | Counsel for Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Surui Qu | Attorney | Counsel for Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge James Donato | Judge | California Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict adopts in full a magistrate’s report and recommendation, entering default judgment under FRCP 55(b)(2) after the Eitel factors were found to favour the plaintiff. The injunction’s broad language — covering all persons acting in agency or concert with the defendant — suggests the court was alive to the risk of evasion through related entities. Critically, the order preserves the defendant’s right to move for relief from judgment, meaning the case is technically closed but not entirely final if the defendant resurfaces.
USD955,550 & USD958,465 — Ornamental design patents for cat houses
US design patents D955,550 (application US29/713325) and D958,465 (application US29/713971) both protect the ornamental appearance of cat house products. Design patents in the US cover only the aesthetic, non-functional visual characteristics of an article of manufacture — not its utility or construction method. The ‘D’ prefix and ‘S’ suffix designate US design patents, which typically have a 15-year term from grant. The asserted claims turn on whether competing products create the same overall visual impression in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
For the pet products sector, these patents represent a growing class of design IP being used by Chinese manufacturers and traders to lock in product aesthetics developed for the US market. Competitors sourcing or manufacturing similar cat house designs — particularly those distributed via Amazon, Chewy, or other US e-commerce platforms — face genuine infringement exposure if their products share the overall ornamental impression of the patented designs. The injunction obtained here signals that these patents will be actively enforced.
Should you run an FTO against D955,550 and D958,465?
Any company developing, sourcing, importing, or selling cat houses or similarly styled pet enclosures for the US market should treat D955,550 and D958,465 as live design patent risks. The injunction obtained in this case is US-wide and extends to agents and related parties — meaning distributors and fulfilment partners of an infringing product could also face liability. FTO analysis is particularly urgent for products listed on US e-commerce platforms where the same item may be sold by multiple third-party sellers.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to run structured freedom-to-operate analyses against both design patents in minutes. Eureka can map the visual claim scope of D955,550 and D958,465, identify design-around opportunities, and surface any related design patent families held by Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co. or similar entities — giving R&D and sourcing teams the intelligence they need before committing to a product launch or import programme.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0958465S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar US design patent cases: cat house and pet product IP disputes
Cases below involve US design patent enforcement actions in federal district courts covering ornamental pet product designs, including cross-border e-commerce disputes in N.D. California.
What this case signals for the pet products design patent IP landscape
Default judgment with permanent injunction is an increasingly favoured strategy for US design patent holders targeting non-appearing foreign competitors.
Foreign e-commerce sellers ignoring US process risk sweeping injunctions
This case illustrates that failing to appear in a US patent case does not make the dispute disappear — it typically results in default judgment and an injunction that can block all US sales channels. Any Chinese seller with US-market exposure should treat service of a US lawsuit as requiring immediate legal response, regardless of the claim’s perceived merit.
Design patents on pet products are actively enforced in US federal courts
Patents D955,550 and D958,465 relate to the ornamental design of cat houses — a product category that may appear low-stakes but is subject to active US design patent enforcement. Companies developing or sourcing cat house products for the US market should conduct FTO analysis against registered design patents before product launch or importation.
Xiamen v SuZhou — key questions answered
Xiamen Zhaozhao asserted two US design patents: D955,550 (application US29/713325) and D958,465 (application US29/713971), both covering the ornamental design of cat houses. The court entered a permanent injunction based on both patents after granting default judgment.
The injunction permanently bars SuZhou XiongXiaoDou, its parent companies, subsidiaries, related companies, and all persons acting in agency or concert with it from making, using, importing, distributing, supplying, selling, or offering to sell any product within the scope of patents D955,550 and D958,465 in or to the United States.
Default judgment was entered because SuZhou XiongXiaoDou never appeared in the case or otherwise responded to the complaint. Under FRCP 55(b)(2), a court may enter default judgment when a defendant fails to defend. Magistrate Judge Westmore applied the Eitel v. McCool factors and found all weighed in favour of Zhaozhao, recommending default judgment, which District Judge Donato adopted in full.
Yes. The court’s order explicitly states that a defendant in default may appear and bring a motion to set aside the default judgment as circumstances warrant. Under FRCP 55(c), a court may relieve a party from default judgment for good cause, which typically requires showing the default was not willful, a meritorious defence exists, and the opposing party would not be prejudiced.
These design patents protect the ornamental appearance of specific cat house designs, covering the visual impression of the product rather than its function. Any seller offering cat houses with a substantially similar overall appearance in the US market faces potential infringement exposure. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is willing to litigate and has obtained a broad US-wide injunction, making FTO analysis essential for competing sellers.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.