Yongjie Wu v. JunW Inc: Default Judgment for Pizza Stove Design Patent Infringement
Patent holder Yongjie Wu sued Amazon seller JunW Inc for infringing U.S. Design Patent No. D845695, covering a pizza stove design. The Illinois Northern District Court entered a default judgment after JunW Inc failed to appear, awarding Wu $15,000 in infringer’s profits and a permanent injunction — all resolved in just 102 days.
Amazon seller held liable for pizza stove design knockoff in 102-day default action
On March 20, 2025, individual inventor Yongjie Wu filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against JunW Inc, an Amazon marketplace seller operating through ASIN B0D6GGN516. Wu alleged that JunW Inc was selling unlicensed knockoff products that infringed the ornamental design claimed in U.S. Patent No. D845695, which covers a pizza stove design. The case was assigned to Judge LaShonda A. Hunt and prosecuted by the firm DeWitty and Associates, Chtd.
JunW Inc never appeared in the proceedings. The court found that service had been properly effected via electronic publication, email, and notices from domain registrars and payment processors — a method consistent with modern e-commerce enforcement. Default was entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), and the court subsequently granted Wu’s motion for default judgment on June 30, 2025. The judgment awarded $15,000 in infringer’s profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 and imposed a permanent injunction covering all sales, marketing, and distribution of infringing products.
The 102-day resolution is notably swift and consistent with an accelerating body of default judgments against anonymous or unresponsive e-commerce sellers. The absence of any defense suggests JunW Inc may have been operating as a transient marketplace account, a pattern commonly associated with ‘Schedule A’ design patent enforcement campaigns. What remains unknown from the public record is the actual volume of infringing sales and whether Wu’s total damages exposure was higher than the awarded $15,000 — the restrained Amazon account funds were ordered released as partial payment, implying full recovery was not guaranteed.
Filing to Default Judgment in 102 days
102 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the average district court IP case
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: allegations deemed admitted without trial
Because JunW Inc failed to answer or appear, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) to enter default, treating the complaint’s allegations as uncontroverted and admitted. This allowed the court to find design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 without a full evidentiary trial. Default judgments in design patent cases are increasingly common where defendants are anonymous or foreign e-commerce sellers with limited U.S. presence.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) defaultWu secures $15,000 award and permanent injunction
Yongjie Wu obtained a permanent injunction barring JunW Inc and any associates from making, selling, or distributing products infringing D845695, and was awarded $15,000 in infringer’s profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Amazon Pay and Amazon.com were ordered to release restrained account funds to Wu within 14 days. Wu also retains authority to pursue supplemental proceedings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 until full recovery is confirmed.
Plaintiff win — profits + injunctionJunW Inc faces account disablement and frozen funds
The default judgment requires third parties — including Amazon, PayPal, Alibaba, and social media platforms — to disable all accounts and financial instruments linked to JunW Inc within seven days of the order. The company’s Amazon seller account (ASIN B0D6GGN516) and any associated email accounts, including [email protected], must be shut down. JunW Inc’s failure to appear forfeits any ability to contest the patent’s validity or dispute the damages calculation.
Accounts disabled, funds seizedBroad third-party enforcement orders set a template for e-commerce design IP
The court’s order extends enforcement to payment processors, domain registrars, and marketplace platforms — a structural approach increasingly adopted in Schedule A design patent litigation. For competing sellers in the cookware and outdoor cooking accessories space, this judgment reinforces that U.S. design patents can be rapidly enforced against marketplace accounts even when sellers are unresponsive. The permanent injunction scope is notably broad, covering any future accounts associated with the defaulting defendant.
Platform-level enforcement orderFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Yongjie Wu | Individual | Individual inventor and design patent holder — holder of U.S. Patent No. D845695 (pizza stove design)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | JunW Inc | Company | JunW Inc — Amazon marketplace seller of allegedly infringing pizza stove products (ASIN B0D6GGN516)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Michael Dewitty | Attorney | Counsel for Yongjie WuSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dewitty And Associates, Chtd. | Law Firm | Representing Yongjie WuSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge LaShonda A. Hunt | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment is legally comprehensive: by deeming all allegations admitted under Rule 55, the court bypassed any validity or non-infringement analysis, rendering JunW Inc’s substantive defenses permanently waived at this level. The § 289 profits award of $15,000 and the platform-level injunction reflect the court’s broad equitable authority in design patent matters. The partial-payment language in paragraph 4 suggests restrained account balances may not have fully covered the award, leaving Wu with supplemental enforcement rights under Rule 69.
USD D845695 — Pizza Stove Ornamental Design Patent
U.S. Patent No. D845695 (application no. US 29/606,173) is a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a pizza stove. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the visual, non-functional characteristics of a manufactured article — meaning the protected scope is the specific aesthetic presentation of the stove as depicted in the patent drawings. The ‘D’ prefix designates a U.S. design patent, which carries a term of 15 years from grant. Infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary purchaser would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design.
In the cookware and outdoor cooking accessories market, design patents like D845695 are strategically significant because the ornamental appearance of kitchen products is often a key consumer differentiator — and relatively easy to copy in overseas manufacturing. This patent gives Wu an enforceable exclusive right to the specific visual design of her pizza stove, blocking lookalike products from competing on Amazon and other U.S. marketplaces. The breadth of the injunction order — covering manufacturing, distribution, and third-party platform accounts — signals the commercial leverage that a well-maintained design patent can provide against e-commerce counterfeiters.
Should you run an FTO against USD D845695 before listing a pizza stove product?
Any manufacturer, importer, or Amazon marketplace seller planning to list a pizza stove or similar outdoor cooking appliance in the U.S. should treat D845695 as a live enforcement risk. The permanent injunction entered in this case extends to any seller with an ornamentally similar design — even if the brand name differs. Given the ordinary observer test applied in design patent infringement, visual similarity (not functional identity) is the relevant threshold. A formal FTO clearance review against D845695 and related design patents in this product category is commercially prudent before launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to run targeted clearance searches against active U.S. design patents in the cookware and kitchen appliance space. By mapping the visual claim scope of D845695 against your proposed product design, Eureka helps identify infringement risk before you invest in tooling or inventory. The platform also surfaces related design patent families and pending applications that may create additional exposure — giving legal and commercial teams a complete picture of the IP landscape before entering the U.S. market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0845695S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent enforcement cases: pizza stove and cookware IP litigation
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent infringement actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois targeting Amazon marketplace sellers of cookware and outdoor cooking products.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable PIZZA STOVE-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedYongjie Wu’s broader IP enforcement history
Yongjie Wu’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the cookware and e-commerce design IP landscape
This default judgment illustrates the growing use of design patent litigation as a rapid enforcement tool against anonymous marketplace sellers.
Schedule A enforcement is accelerating against Amazon sellers
Cases like Wu v. JunW Inc follow a repeatable playbook: file on a design patent, serve electronically, move for default when the seller ghosts. The 102-day resolution and $15,000 award with platform-level account freezes signal that individual inventors can now enforce design IP against e-commerce sellers with relatively low friction in northern Illinois federal court.
Design patent D845695 carries a permanent injunction — competitor risk is active
Any seller — domestic or overseas — currently offering a pizza stove product with an ornamental design similar to D845695 should treat this judgment as an active signal. The injunction is permanent and enforcement authority extends to supplemental proceedings. Wu’s legal team retains ongoing rights to identify new infringing accounts and financial instruments.
Amazon account seizure orders are now routine — plan your seller strategy accordingly
This judgment confirms that Amazon Pay and third-party payment processors will comply with court orders to freeze and release seller funds within tight timeframes. For IP owners, this creates a viable rapid-recovery mechanism. For sellers, it underscores that non-appearance is never a safe default — frozen funds and permanent account loss are the predictable consequences.
35 U.S.C. § 289 profits awards in cookware design cases: calibrating your exposure
The $15,000 profits award under § 289 reflects the infringer’s total article profits — not just the patent holder’s damages. In cookware and kitchen appliance design cases, § 289 exposure can substantially exceed the actual royalty value of a license. Sellers and distributors in this category should conduct FTO clearance before listing new product designs on U.S. marketplaces.
Wu v JunW — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in favor of plaintiff Yongjie Wu on June 30, 2025. JunW Inc failed to appear, and the court awarded Wu $15,000 in infringer’s profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 and issued a permanent injunction against further infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D845695.
U.S. Patent No. D845695 is a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a pizza stove. Design patents cover the non-functional visual characteristics of a product as shown in patent drawings. Infringement is assessed under the ordinary observer test — whether a typical buyer would be deceived into thinking the accused product is the same as the patented design.
The court found service was properly effected via electronic publication and email, supplemented by notices from domain name registrars and payment processors. This method of service is increasingly accepted in Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions where defendants are anonymous or foreign sellers operating through marketplace accounts rather than traditional business addresses.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent holder may recover the total profits of the infringer from the sale of any article to which the patented design has been applied. In Wu v. JunW Inc, the court awarded $15,000 in infringer’s profits. The § 289 remedy is distinct from reasonable royalty damages and can result in awards disproportionate to license value, making it a powerful tool in design patent enforcement against low-cost marketplace sellers.
Yes. The default judgment order expressly directed Amazon.com and Amazon Pay to release all restrained funds from JunW Inc’s accounts to Wu within 14 calendar days. The order also referenced the $15,000 award as a target for full recovery, and Wu was granted ongoing authority under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 to pursue supplemental proceedings — including asset discovery — until the full judgment amount has been collected.
Protect your cookware designs — or clear competing products before launch
Design patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers is accelerating. Run an FTO search on D845695 and related pizza stove design patents in PatSnap Eureka before listing competing products, or monitor new enforcement filings in this space.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.