Yanzhe Lu v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Soap Dish Design Patent
Plaintiff Yanzhe Lu filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against more than 50 e-commerce sellers alleging willful infringement of design patent USD968842S covering a soap dish. No defendant appeared or responded, and Judge Martha M. Pacold entered default judgment with a permanent injunction in just 127 days.
Mass e-commerce design patent enforcement ends in unopposed default
On April 30, 2024, plaintiff Yanzhe Lu, represented by The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a Schedule A list of over 50 online marketplace sellers — including Accompai, KOCOME, Daskanian, ZERDOM, and dozens of others — alleging willful infringement of design patent USD968842S, which covers the ornamental design of a soap dish (Application No. 29/801156).
The case resolved on September 4, 2024 — 127 days after filing — when Judge Martha M. Pacold granted plaintiff’s motion for entry of default and default judgment. The court found that no defendant had appeared or responded, constituting an admission of liability by default. The court awarded damages in the amount specified in the attached order, entered a permanent injunction, and released the $10,000 surety bond to plaintiff’s counsel.
The 127-day resolution is consistent with Schedule A design patent enforcement actions, which are typically structured to move quickly against non-appearing defendants. The court’s finding of willfulness — supported by the TRO evidence and the defendants’ default — is notable for its breadth across so many named parties. The specific monetary damages awarded are referenced in the attached order but not disclosed in the publicly available docket text, leaving the precise financial terms unknown from the public record.
Filing to Default Judgment in 127 days
127 days — faster than the typical N.D. Ill. IP case resolution, reflecting unopposed default proceedings
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: admission of liability by non-appearance
When a defendant fails to respond to a properly served complaint and motion for default judgment, the court may treat the failure to appear as an admission of the well-pleaded allegations. Here, none of the 50+ named defendants responded. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, the court accepted plaintiff’s TRO evidence and entered judgment, including a willfulness finding — without any adversarial testing of the underlying design patent claims.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 defaultPermanent injunction and damages secured without trial
Yanzhe Lu obtained the full range of relief sought: a permanent injunction barring all named defendants from further infringement of USD968842S, a damages award, and return of the $10,000 surety bond. The court’s willfulness finding strengthens the injunction’s enforceability posture. However, collecting monetary damages from predominantly overseas e-commerce sellers typically presents practical enforcement challenges not reflected in the judgment itself.
Permanent injunction grantedNon-appearing sellers face permanent injunction and wilfulness finding
Each named defendant is now subject to a permanent injunction and a court finding of willful infringement — a record that may affect their ability to operate on major marketplace platforms. Willfulness findings obtained by default are, however, procedurally vulnerable: a defendant can move to vacate a default judgment under Rule 60(b) by demonstrating good cause, a meritorious defense, or lack of proper service, though doing so after judgment is significantly harder.
Willful infringement foundSchedule A enforcement: a repeatable playbook for design patent holders
This case is consistent with a broader enforcement playbook used by design patent holders targeting e-commerce counterfeiters: file in N.D. Ill., obtain a TRO and asset freeze against marketplace accounts, then secure default judgment when defendants fail to appear. The pattern suggests that USD968842S and similar consumer-goods design patents carry meaningful deterrent value against marketplace sellers, even where post-judgment monetary recovery may be uncertain.
E-commerce enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Yanzhe Lu | Individual | Individual design patent holder — owner of USD968842S covering a soap dish ornamental designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | 50+ e-commerce marketplace sellers alleged to infringe plaintiff’s soap dish design patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Accompai | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | BEST CUSTOMER SERVICE | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Daskanian | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | DIYANA CART | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | GVIOOEI | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | KOCOME | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others too numerous to list: Ledarray International, SFJ STORE, quhazn, Zhongchengweishi Ltd, yunxiaoxianjinghanbaihuodian, Chengbin electronic Co., Ltd., wuyoushop, Jiujiang Henghechang E-commerce Co.Ltd, Fxqlove, WATONASH, GoodTend, lihaifeng123, YeCuo, Quixella, nulishangbanooo, XiuRong, Miangastore, Songchenman Trading Co., Ltd., SIX Sigma, IFREE STORE, KZhanmy, Iced oranges, xiaolong888, Best M, Familyhome Life Hall, Wliqien, ZhengZhouShiQiuBanJuShangMaoYouXianGongSi, teafirst, Chengduqiuhainian Co.,Ltd, Wavewave, yunluner, hailisen, zhuoqixinxi, Implex, ETI T llc, Monkeyjunjun, Zsaw-US, CHENGZHI Commercial, thinsont, FUELEGO(90% Off Deals), Qiu yue Xuan Wen Co., Ltd., lllook, UM-digtal, Guangzhou youqihui co., ltd, Qiysangi, YIDUMKC01, MinnHuii, XIOANGSNDBB, Yuehuam2019, SHOWERRING, ZERDOM | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | VISIONS GLOBAL | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | ZCHAINBRAND STORE | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | ZhuYiUSiUS | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Depeng Bi | Attorney | Counsel for Yanzhe LuSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Konrad Val Sherinian | Attorney | Counsel for Yanzhe LuSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC | Law Firm | Representing Yanzhe LuSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Martha M. Pacold | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order reflects a well-established N.D. Ill. template: the court relied on TRO evidence and the defendants’ admission of liability by non-appearance to find willful infringement, irreparable harm, and the inadequacy of monetary damages. The breadth of the permanent injunction — covering all named defendants across Schedule A — is consistent with this enforcement model. Because no defendant appeared, the underlying design patent USD968842S was never adversarially tested for validity or scope, meaning the patent’s enforceability against future defendants remains untested on the merits.
USD968842S — Ornamental Design for a Soap Dish
USD968842S (Application No. 29/801156) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a soap dish. U.S. design patents cover the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article of manufacture and are governed by 35 U.S.C. § 171. They typically have a term of 15 years from grant. Design patents in the consumer housewares category are commonly asserted against marketplace sellers due to the ease of visual comparison between the patented design and accused products.
In the context of e-commerce enforcement, design patents like USD968842S carry strategic importance disproportionate to their complexity: the infringement test (the ‘ordinary observer’ standard from Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa) relies on visual similarity, making default judgment relatively straightforward when defendants do not appear to contest the comparison. Competitors in the bathroom accessories and home goods sectors should assess whether their soap dish product lines could be characterised as substantially similar to the claimed ornamental design.
Should your soap dish product line be cleared against USD968842S?
Any manufacturer, importer, or online seller of soap dishes — particularly those distributing through Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or Etsy — should assess their product designs against USD968842S. The Schedule A enforcement model means that new sellers can be added to future litigation waves quickly. The ordinary observer test means that even products not intended to copy the design may be caught if they produce the same overall visual impression.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD968842S against your current and pipeline product designs, flag design-around opportunities, and identify whether related design patent families exist under the same applicant. Running a proactive FTO analysis before listing a soap dish product on major marketplaces is a low-cost way to reduce Schedule A litigation exposure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0968842S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent enforcement actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois targeting e-commerce sellers of consumer housewares and home goods.
What this case signals for design patent enforcement on e-commerce platforms
The Schedule A default judgment model is a proven, cost-efficient tool for design patent holders targeting marketplace infringers.
N.D. Ill. remains the preferred venue for Schedule A design patent cases
The Northern District of Illinois has become a favoured court for Schedule A enforcement actions due to its familiarity with the procedure, willingness to grant TROs, and efficient default judgment pipeline. Design patent holders targeting e-commerce sellers should evaluate this venue carefully when planning enforcement campaigns.
Willfulness by default strengthens platform-level enforcement leverage
A court-issued willfulness finding — even obtained by default — can be used as grounds to seek account suspension or product delisting on Amazon, Etsy, and similar marketplaces. IP holders should document this judgment in DMCA and marketplace notice programs to maximise its practical deterrent effect beyond the named defendants.
Lu v Partnerships — key questions answered
Judge Martha M. Pacold of the Northern District of Illinois entered default judgment in favour of plaintiff Yanzhe Lu on September 4, 2024. The court found willful infringement of design patent USD968842S, awarded damages, and entered a permanent injunction against all named defendants. No defendant appeared or contested the action.
The case concerns U.S. Design Patent USD968842S (Application No. 29/801156), which protects the ornamental design of a soap dish. Design patents cover the visual appearance — not the functional aspects — of a product, and infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ standard.
The court followed the standard Schedule A enforcement procedure: plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order early in the case, then moved for default judgment after defendants failed to appear. The court relied on TRO evidence and the defendants’ admission by default to find willful infringement and enter a permanent injunction covering all Schedule A defendants.
Yes. Defendants subject to a default judgment may move to vacate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) by demonstrating good cause for the default, a meritorious defense, and lack of undue prejudice to the plaintiff. However, doing so after entry of final judgment is procedurally more difficult, and the underlying design patent’s validity would still need to be challenged through a separate IPR or district court invalidity proceeding.
A willfulness finding — even obtained by default — signals to marketplace platforms that the named seller has been judicially found to have knowingly infringed. This can support DMCA takedowns, account suspensions, and delisting requests on Amazon and similar platforms. It also establishes a record that may be relevant to enhanced damages in any future enforcement action against the same entity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.