Book a demo
Yang v. Annex A Defendants — Pop Keychain Patent Default Judgment | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:23-cv-15409
FiledOct 2023
ClosedFeb 2024
Patent Litigation

Yang v. Annex A Defendants: Default Judgment on Pop Keychain Design Patent D979,929

Plaintiff Yuxiong Yang filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against dozens of anonymous e-commerce sellers accused of infringing U.S. Design Patent D979,929 covering a pop keychain. No defendant answered or appeared, and the court granted default judgment with a permanent injunction and statutory damages within 123 days of filing.

Resolution time
123days
123 days — resolved well below the multi-year median for design patent infringement cases
Patents asserted
1
US D979,929 — Pop Keychain ornamental design patent asserted against e-commerce sellers
Outcome
Default Judgment
All defaulting defendants deemed to have admitted infringement; permanent injunction and damages awarded
Cost ruling
$20,000 Bond
Plaintiff’s cash bond released to counsel Getech Law LLC upon entry of default judgment
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Design patent ambush: Yang sweeps e-commerce infringers in 123 days

On 28 October 2023, individual inventor Yuxiong Yang filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a large group of e-commerce sellers operating under aliases including ahelmick, bashirusa, MORECHIC, Turkman LLC, Yangcy, Zwyc, and dozens of others identified in Annex A. The action asserted infringement of U.S. Design Patent D979,929, which protects the ornamental design of a pop keychain, a product sold through online marketplaces including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, and Wish.com.

None of the named defendants answered the complaint or made any appearance in the case. Having obtained a preliminary injunction and completed service via electronic publication and email — a method the court found constitutionally adequate for defendants operating anonymously online — Yang moved for default and default judgment. On 28 February 2024, Judge Thomas M. Durkin granted the motion, entering a permanent injunction and awarding statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) on a per-defendant basis as set out in Annex B.

The 123-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated trajectory typical of multi-defendant design patent default actions in the Northern District of Illinois, where courts have developed streamlined procedures for Annex A-style e-commerce enforcement campaigns. What the public record does not reveal is the aggregate damages sum across all defaulting defendants, the precise number of units sold, or whether any defendants were subsequently dismissed prior to the default judgment. The absence of any defendant representation suggests the sellers either could not be located or chose not to defend, patterns common in Chinese cross-border e-commerce enforcement cases.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:23-cv-15409
PlaintiffYuxiong Yang
CourtIllinois Northern
JudgeThomas M. Durkin
FiledOctober 28, 2023
ClosedFebruary 28, 2024
Duration123 days
OutcomeDefault Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDefault Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Illinois Northern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to settlement in 123 days

123 days — resolved well below the multi-year median for design patent infringement cases

Case timeline: Complaint filed OCT 28 2023, DEC–JAN — 123 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Yuxiong Yang v The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. OCT 28 2023 Complaint filed DEC–JAN 2023 Pre-trial proceedings FEB 28 2024 Default Judgment 123 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Default judgment entered: permanent injunction and statutory damages against all defaulting defendants

Legal mechanism

Default judgment: uncontested liability deemed admitted

When defendants fail to appear, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 permits the court to enter default and, on motion, default judgment. All factual allegations in the complaint are deemed admitted. Here, the court found personal jurisdiction because defendants operated stores shipping to Illinois, satisfying the minimum contacts threshold. Liability for design patent infringement of D979,929 was therefore established without any merits contest.

FRCP 55 default procedure
Plaintiff outcome

Yang obtains permanent injunction and asset freeze across major platforms

The judgment grants Yang a permanent injunction covering all major e-commerce platforms and payment processors. Domain names may be transferred or disabled. Financial accounts held by PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, Alibaba, and Wish.com are frozen and released to Yang as partial payment of statutory damages. Yang retains authority to commence supplemental collection proceedings under FRCP 69 until fully satisfied.

Permanent injunction + asset transfer
Defendant outcome

Defaulting sellers face permanent ban and frozen marketplace accounts

Defaulting defendants are permanently enjoined from using D979,929 in any form. Their online marketplace accounts are disabled, and third-party platforms have been ordered to cease supporting their operations. Funds held in their payment accounts are released directly to the plaintiff. The judgment applies to each defendant once even if listed under multiple aliases, limiting duplicative damages exposure.

Platform accounts disabled
Commercial implications

Annex A default judgments signal ongoing enforcement risk for e-commerce sellers

This case follows a well-established Northern District of Illinois enforcement template. Sellers on Amazon, AliExpress, and similar platforms offering pop keychain or comparable novelty accessory products face real injunction and asset-freeze risk even if operating under pseudonymous accounts. The ability to serve defendants electronically and obtain platform-level cooperation from Amazon Pay, PayPal, and Alibaba makes this enforcement model commercially viable for individual patent holders.

E-commerce enforcement risk
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:23-cv-15409 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffYuxiong YangIndividualIndividual inventor and design patent holder — holder of U.S. D979,929 (Pop Keychain)Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex AIndividualDozens of anonymous e-commerce sellers operating across Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, and Wish.comSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantahelmickIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantbashirusaIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantMORECHICIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-Defendantnoonmo-8389IndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantOthers too numerous to list: Fidwod, Kenwqzi, no1jiggaman, Teyjry, lamo335, ZhongYiHongDakeJi, Kunminglitingxiangdianzishangwu youxiangongsi, Creatick LLC, Bilos, Ball ball baby, Top-toy, sb4dmb, iTechjoy Toys, life-essentials-35, Shenzhen Topai trading Co., LTD, Terminal snow, Sthc, Pqiiqing, Ambler, Ambler home, Good oo, mjdsc08CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantSelina DIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantTurkman LLCCompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Co-Defendanttyshaun18IndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantYangcyIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantZwycIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselGe LeiAttorneyCounsel for Yuxiong YangSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmGetech Law LLCLaw FirmRepresenting Yuxiong YangSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Thomas M. DurkinJudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“This action having been commenced by Plaintiff Yuxiong Yang (“PLAINTIFF”) against the defendants identified on Annex A, and using the Defendant Domain Names and Online Marketplace Accounts identified on Annex A (collectively, the “Defendant Internet Stores”), and PLAINTIFF having moved for entry of Default and Default Judgment against the defendants identified on Annex A attached hereto which have not yet been dismissed from this case (collectively, “Defaulting Defendants”); This Court having entered a preliminary injunction; PLAINTIFF having properly completed service of process on Defaulting Defendants, the combination of providing notice via electronic publication and e-mail, along with any notice that Defaulting Defendants received from domain name registrars and payment processors, being notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise Defaulting Defendants of the pendency of the action and affording them the opportunity to answer and present their objections; and Case: 1:23-cv-15409 Document #: 38 Filed: 02/28/24 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1202 2 None of the Defaulting Defendants having answered or appeared in any way, and the time for answering having expired, so that the allegations of the Complaint are uncontroverted and are deemed admitted; This Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over Defaulting Defendants because Defaulting Defendants directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, PLAINTIFF has provided a basis to conclude that Defaulting Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating ecommerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more seller aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, and have sold products using infringing versions of PLAINTIFF’s federally registered patent (the “PLAINTIFF’s Patent”) to residents of Illinois. In this case, PLAINTIFF has presented screenshot evidence that each Defendant ecommerce store is reaching out to do business with Illinois residents by operating one or more commercial, interactive internet stores through which Illinois residents can and do purchase products using infringing versions of the PLAINTIFF’s Patent. See Docket No.[13], which includes screenshot evidence confirming that each Defendant e-commerce store does stand ready, willing and able to ship its infringing goods to customers in Illinois bearing infringing versions of the PLAINTIFF’s Patent. A list of the PLAINTIFF’s Patent is included in the below chart. Registration Number Title U.S. D979,929 POP KEYCHAIN A summary chart of Defaulting Defendants’ activities, including total ordered units, gross revenue of sales, and amount sought by Plaintiff per Defaulting Defendant, is included in the below chart. Case: 1:23-cv-15409 Document #: 38 Filed: 02/28/24 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:1203 3 Accordingly, this Court orders that PLAINTIFF’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED as follows, that Defaulting Defendants are deemed in default, and that this Default Judgment is entered against Defaulting Defendants. This Court further orders that: 1. Defaulting Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them be permanently enjoined and restrained from: a. using the PLAINTIFF’s Patent or any reproductions, infringing copies, or colorable imitations in any manner in connection with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product that is not a genuine PLAINTIFF product or not authorized by PLAINTIFF to be sold in connection with the PLAINTIFF’s Patent; b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a genuine PLAINTIFF product or any other product produced by PLAINTIFF, that is not Case: 1:23-cv-15409 Document #: 38 Filed: 02/28/24 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:1204 4 PLAINTIFF’s or not produced under the authorization, control, or supervision of PLAINTIFF and approved by PLAINTIFF for sale under the PLAINTIFF’s Patent; c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defaulting Defendants’ products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of PLAINTIFF, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with PLAINTIFF; and d. manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, products or inventory not manufactured by or for PLAINTIFF, nor authorized by PLAINTIFF to be sold or offered for sale, and which bear any of PLAINTIFF’s Patent, including the PLAINTIFF’s Patent, or any reproductions, infringing copies or colorable imitations. 2. The domain name registries for the Defendant Domain Names, including, but not limited to, VeriSign, Inc., Neustar, Inc., Afilias Limited, CentralNic, Nominet, and the Public Interest Registry, and the domain name registrars, including, but not limited to, GoDaddy Operating Company LLC, Name.com, PDR LTD. d/b/a/ PublicDomainRegistry.com, and Namecheap Inc., within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order, shall, at PLAINTIFF’s choosing: a. transfer the Defendant Domain Names to PLAINTIFF’s control, including unlocking and changing the registrar of record for the Defendant Domain Names to a registrar of PLAINTIFF’s selection, and the domain name registrars shall take any steps necessary to transfer the Defendant Domain Names to a registrar of PLAINTIFF’s selection; or b. disable the Defendant Domain Names and make them inactive and untransferable. Case: 1:23-cv-15409 Document #: 38 Filed: 02/28/24 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:1205 5 3. Defaulting Defendants and any third party with actual notice of this Order who is providing services for any of the Defaulting Defendants, or in connection with any of the Defaulting Defendants’ Online Marketplaces, including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as eBay, Inc., AliExpress, Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. (“Alibaba”), Amazon.com, ContextLogic, Inc. d/b/a Wish.com (“Wish.com”), and Dhgate (collectively, the “Third Party Providers”), shall within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order cease: a. using, linking to, transferring, selling, exercising control over, or otherwise owning the Online Marketplace Accounts, or any other online marketplace account that is being used to sell or is the means by which Defaulting Defendants could continue to sell infringing goods using the PLAINTIFF’s Patent; and b. operating and/or hosting websites that are involved with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product bearing the PLAINTIFF’s Patent or any reproductions, infringing copies or colorable imitations thereof that is not a genuine PLAINTIFF product or not authorized by PLAINTIFF to be sold in connection with the PLAINTIFF’s Patent. 4. Upon PLAINTIFF’S’s request, those with notice of this Order, including the Third Party Providers as defined in Paragraph 4, shall within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of such notice, disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with Defaulting Defendants in connection with the sale of infringing goods using the PLAINTIFF’s Patent. 5. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2), PLAINTIFF is awarded damages from each of the Defaulting Defendants in the amount identified on Annex B, attached hereto, for willful Case: 1:23-cv-15409 Document #: 38 Filed: 02/28/24 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:1206 6 use of infringing PLAINTIFF’s Patent on products sold through at least the Defendant Internet Stores. This award shall apply to each distinct Defaulting Defendant only once, even if they are listed under multiple different aliases in the Complaint and Annex A. 6. Any Third Party Providers holding funds for Defaulting Defendants, including PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”), Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Ant Financial Services Group (“Ant Financial”), and Amazon Pay, shall, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order, permanently restrain and enjoin any accounts connected to Defaulting Defendants or the Defendant Internet Stores from transferring or disposing of any funds (up to the statutory damages awarded in Paragraph 6 above) or other of Defaulting Defendants’ assets. 7. All monies (up to the amount of the statutory damages awarded in Paragraph 6 above) currently restrained in Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts, including monies held by Third Party Providers such as PayPal, Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay, are hereby released to PLAINTIFF as partial payment of the above-identified damages, and Third Party Providers, including PayPal, Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay, are ordered to release to PLAINTIFF the amounts from Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of this Order. 8. Until PLAINTIFF has recovered full payment of monies owed to it by any Defaulting Defendant, PLAINTIFF shall have the ongoing authority to commence supplemental proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69. 9. In the event that PLAINTIFF identifies any additional online marketplace accounts or financial accounts owned by Defaulting Defendants, PLAINTIFF may send notice of any Case: 1:23-cv-15409 Document #: 38 Filed: 02/28/24 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:1207 7 supplemental proceeding, including a citation to discover assets, to Defaulting Defendants by any e-mail addresses provided for Defaulting Defendants by third parties. 10. The twenty thousand dollar ($20,000.00) cash bond posted by PLAINTIFF, with any applicable interest is hereby released to PLAINTIFF or its counsel, Getech Law LLC. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the cash bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court, with any applicable interest to Plaintiff’s Counsel, .Getech Law LLC, 203 N LaSalle St, #2100, Chicago, IL 60601.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:23-cv-15409, Illinois Northern District Court

The default judgment language confirms uncontested liability: no defendant appeared, so all complaint allegations are deemed admitted as a matter of law. The court’s personal jurisdiction finding — grounded in defendants’ active targeting of Illinois consumers via U.S.-shipping e-commerce storefronts — is significant for future Annex A filings. The damages award references 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2), the willful infringement statutory damages provision, suggesting the court accepted Yang’s evidence of intentional copying, though the per-defendant figures in Annex B are not reproduced in the public docket text.

PACER case 1:23-cv-15409 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US D979,929 — Ornamental design for a pop keychain

Publication No.USD0979929S
Application No.US29/842812
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design for a pop keychain novelty accessory
Cited in actionOctober 28, 2023

U.S. Design Patent D979,929 protects the ornamental appearance of a pop keychain — a novelty accessory product sold widely across consumer e-commerce platforms. Design patents, unlike utility patents, protect only the visual ornamental characteristics of an article of manufacture, not its functional features. The underlying application number US 29/842,812 suggests a relatively recent filing, consistent with the rapid commercialisation of pop-socket-style accessories in the consumer goods market.

The strategic value of D979,929 lies in its breadth against visually similar competing products on open marketplaces. Because design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — whether an ordinary consumer would be deceived into thinking the accused product is the same as the patented design — sellers of substantially similar pop keychain designs face genuine infringement exposure. This makes D979,929 a commercially potent enforcement asset against the long tail of anonymous international sellers on Amazon and AliExpress.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your product team run an FTO against US D979,929?

Any company or individual seller planning to manufacture, import, or list a pop keychain or visually similar novelty keychain accessory on Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, or comparable platforms should assess freedom-to-operate against D979,929. The Northern District of Illinois has demonstrated willingness to grant asset freezes and platform account disablement on an expedited basis. The risk is not theoretical — accounts and funds can be frozen within days of a judgment.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental claim scope of D979,929 against your proposed product design, identify related design patent families filed by the same inventor, and flag similar design patents in the novelty accessories space. This analysis is directly relevant for product sourcing teams, Amazon sellers, and brand protection professionals operating in the pop accessories category.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0979929S to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar design patent Annex A enforcement cases in the N.D. Illinois

Explore related design patent infringement default judgment cases in the Northern District of Illinois targeting anonymous e-commerce sellers on Amazon, AliExpress, and Wish.com.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Yuxiong Yang patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern case history, Yuxiong Yang’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Pop accessory design casesN.D. Ill. Annex A defaultsAmazon seller injunctionsD979,929 related filings
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the design patent e-commerce enforcement landscape

Northern District of Illinois Annex A actions continue to be an effective tool for individual inventors enforcing design patents against anonymous online sellers.

Electronic service is judicially validated for anonymous e-commerce defendants

Judge Durkin’s order confirms that email and electronic publication constitute constitutionally adequate service for defendants operating pseudonymously across international e-commerce platforms. Patent holders targeting similar seller populations can rely on this framework to proceed to default without requiring traditional service abroad.

Platform cooperation is the enforcement mechanism — not litigation on the merits

The real enforcement leverage in cases like this lies in compelling Amazon, PayPal, Alibaba, and Wish.com to freeze accounts and transfer funds. The default judgment operationalises this by binding third-party providers directly. Sellers who ignore proceedings lose not just their accounts but any accumulated marketplace revenue.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated analysis on statutory damages strategy and design patent FTO risk for e-commerce sellers in the Northern District of Illinois.
Per-defendant damages modelD979,929 claim scope riskPlatform cooperation tactics
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Yuxiong v Entities — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Stay ahead of design patent enforcement in the e-commerce accessories market

Track new Annex A filings, monitor D979,929 and related design patents, and run FTO searches before launching novelty accessory products on Amazon or AliExpress. PatSnap Eureka surfaces enforcement risk before it reaches your accounts.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.