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.
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.
Filing to settlement in 123 days
123 days — resolved well below the multi-year median for design patent infringement cases
Default judgment entered: permanent injunction and statutory damages against all defaulting defendants
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 procedureYang 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 transferDefaulting 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 disabledAnnex 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 riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Yuxiong Yang | Individual | Individual inventor and design patent holder — holder of U.S. D979,929 (Pop Keychain)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A | Individual | Dozens of anonymous e-commerce sellers operating across Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, and Wish.comSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | ahelmick | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | bashirusa | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | MORECHIC | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | noonmo-8389 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others 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, mjdsc08 | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Selina D | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Turkman LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | tyshaun18 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Yangcy | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Zwyc | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ge Lei | Attorney | Counsel for Yuxiong YangSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Getech Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Yuxiong YangSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Thomas M. Durkin | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
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.
US D979,929 — Ornamental design for a pop keychain
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.
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.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0979929S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →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.
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.
Yuxiong v Entities — key questions answered
U.S. Design Patent D979,929 protects the ornamental appearance of a pop keychain novelty accessory. In this case, Yuxiong Yang asserted this patent against dozens of e-commerce sellers distributing visually similar products through platforms including Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, and Wish.com. Design patents protect visual appearance only, not functional features.
Judge Durkin found personal jurisdiction because each defendant operated e-commerce storefronts that offered shipping to Illinois and actively targeted U.S. consumers. Screenshot evidence submitted by Yang confirmed that each defendant store was ready to ship infringing goods to Illinois residents, satisfying the minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction.
The default judgment orders all third-party providers — including Amazon, PayPal, Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, and Ant Financial — to freeze and transfer to Yang any funds held in defendants’ accounts up to the statutory damages amount. Marketplace accounts are disabled, and domain names may be transferred to Yang or rendered inactive within seven calendar days of the order.
The court awarded damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2), the willful infringement provision, which permits statutory damages up to $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods. The specific per-defendant amounts are set out in Annex B, which is not fully reproduced in the public docket. The judgment clarifies that each defendant is counted once even if listed under multiple aliases.
Yes. The court held that service via electronic publication and email was reasonably calculated to apprise defendants of the action and constitutionally adequate. This is a well-established approach in Northern District of Illinois Annex A cases, where defendants operate pseudonymously online and traditional service is impractical. Notice from domain registrars and payment processors supplemented the direct electronic service.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.