Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Yongjie Wu v. JunW Inc — Design Patent Infringement Pizza Stove | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:25-cv-02995
FiledMar 2025
ClosedJun 2025
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
102days
102 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the average district court IP case
Patents asserted
1
USD D845695 — pizza stove ornamental design; single design patent asserted
Outcome
Default Judgment
Plaintiff win by default; defendant failed to appear, allegations deemed admitted
Cost ruling
$15,000 Award
Infringer’s profits awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 289; Amazon funds ordered released to plaintiff
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:25-cv-02995
PlaintiffYongjie Wu
DefendantJunW Inc
CourtIllinois Northern
JudgeLaShonda A. Hunt
FiledMarch 20, 2025
ClosedJune 30, 2025
Duration102 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 Default Judgment in 102 days

102 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the average district court IP case

Case timeline: Complaint filed MAR 20 2025, MAY–JUN — 102 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Yongjie Wu v JunW Inc from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. MAR 20 2025 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings JUN 30 2025 Default Judgment 102 DAYS TOTAL
Default judgment

Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

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) default
Patent holder outcome

Wu 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 + injunction
Defendant outcome

JunW 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 seized
Commercial implications

Broad 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 order
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:25-cv-02995 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffYongjie WuIndividualIndividual inventor and design patent holder — holder of U.S. Patent No. D845695 (pizza stove design)Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantJunW IncCompanyJunW Inc — Amazon marketplace seller of allegedly infringing pizza stove products (ASIN B0D6GGN516)Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRobert Michael DewittyAttorneyCounsel for Yongjie WuSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmDewitty And Associates, Chtd.Law FirmRepresenting Yongjie WuSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge LaShonda A. HuntJudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“This action having been commenced by Plaintiff YONGJIE WU ("Wu") against Defendant JunW Inc. listed as Defendant 1 on the Schedule A (“Defendant” or “Defaulting Defendant”) or associated with the Amazon ASINs B0D6GGN516 (“Defendant Internet Store”), and Plaintiff having moved for entry of Default and Default Judgment against Defendant; Plaintiff having properly completed service of process on Defaulting Defendant, the combination of providing notice via electronic publication and e-mail, along with any notice that Defaulting Defendant received from domain name registrars and payment processors, being notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise Defaulting Defendant of the pendency of the action and affording them the opportunity to answer and present its objections; and Defaulting Defendant having failed to answer or appear in any way, and the time for answering having expired, so that the allegations of the Complaint are uncontroverted and are deemed admitted; The Court having previously entered default against Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil procedure 55(a); Case: 1:25-cv-02995 Document #: 36 Filed: 06/30/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:99 2 This Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over Defaulting Defendant because Defaulting Defendant directly targets its business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defaulting Defendant has reached out to do business with Illinois residents by operating a commercial, interactive Defendant Internet Store through which Illinois residents can purchase infringing products of Plaintiff’s claimed design in U.S. Patent No.D845695 (**695), as shown below: This Court further finds that Defaulting Defendant is liable for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Accordingly, this Court orders that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED as follows, that Defaulting Defendant is deemed in default and that this Default Judgment is entered against Defaulting Defendant. This Court further orders that: 1. Defaulting Defendant, its affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them be permanently enjoined and restrained from: Case: 1:25-cv-02995 Document #: 36 Filed: 06/30/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:100 3 a. making, using, selling, marketing, offering for sale, advertising, or distributing any reproduction, counterfeit copies or colorable imitations thereof in any manner in connection with any product that is an unlicensed or knock-off version of the claimed design in the **695 patent; b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass of any product as a licensed or genuine product based on the claimed design of the **695 patent; c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defaulting defendant’ products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff Wu, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Wu; d. further infringing the claimed design in the **695 patent; e. manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, knock-off products based on the claimed design in the **695 patent, or any reproductions, counterfeit copies or colorable imitations thereof; and 2. Defaulting Defendant and any third-party with actual notice of this Order who is providing services for the Defaulting Defendant, or in connection with the online marketplaces such as Amazon.com, Amazon Pay, PayPal, Inc. ("PayPal"), eBay, Inc. ("eBay"), Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., Alipay.com Co. Ltd., any related Alibaba entities (collectively "Alibaba"), TEMU.com, social media platforms, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter, Internet search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo, shall within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order: a. disable and cease providing services for any accounts through which Defaulting Defendant, currently or in the future, engages in the sale of infringing product based Case: 1:25-cv-02995 Document #: 36 Filed: 06/30/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:101 4 on the claimed design of the **695 patent, including, but not limited to, any accounts associated with the Defaulting Defendant and the defendant Internet Store; b. disable any account linked to Defaulting Defendant or linked to any and all email addresses used by Defaulting Defendant, including but not limited to [email protected]; c. disable the Defendant Internet Store and any other of Defaulting Defendant’s online marketplace accounts; d. disable any financial accounts owned or controlled by Defaulting Defendant, including its agents, servants, employees, confederates, attorneys, and any persons acting in concert or participation with them, including such accounts residing with or under the control of any banks, savings, and loan associations, payment processors or other financial institutions, including, without limitation, Amazon Pay, PayPal, Alibaba, or other merchant account providers, payment providers, third party processors, and credit card associations (MasterCard, VISA, or American Express). 3. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, Plaintiff Wu is awarded profits in the amount of $15,000 for willful design patent infringement of the claimed design in the **695 patent with products sold through at least the Defendant Internet Store. This award shall apply to the Defaulting Defendant only once. 4. All monies (up to the amount of the profits awarded in Paragraph 3 above) currently restrained in Defaulting Defendant’s financial accounts, including monies held by Amazon.com and/or Amazon Pay are hereby released to Plaintiff Wu and her Case: 1:25-cv-02995 Document #: 36 Filed: 06/30/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:102 5 representatives as partial payment of the above-identified damages, and Amazon.com and/or Amazon Pay is ordered to release to Plaintiff Wu and her representatives the amounts from Defaulting Defendant’ Amazon.com and Amazon Pay accounts within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of this Order. 5. Until Plaintiff Wu has recovered full payment of monies owed to it by Defaulting Defendant, Plaintiff Wu and her representatives shall have the o shall have the ongoing authority to commence supplemental proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69. 6. In the event that Plaintiff Wu identifies any additional online marketplace accounts, domain names or financial accounts owned by Defaulting Defendant, Plaintiff Wu may send notice of any supplemental proceeding, including a citation to discover assets, to Defaulting Defendant by email at the e-mail address identified in Exhibit A and any e-mail addresses provided for Defaulting Defendant by third parties. This is a Default Judgment.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:25-cv-02995, Illinois Northern District Court

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.

PACER case 1:25-cv-02995 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USD D845695 — Pizza Stove Ornamental Design Patent

Publication No.USD0845695S
Application No.US29/606173
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design for a pizza stove
Cited in actionMarch 20, 2025

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.

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

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.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0845695S to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Yongjie Wu patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern case history, Yongjie Wu’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Schedule A Amazon casesCookware design patent suitsN.D. Ill. default judgments§ 289 profits case outcomes
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What 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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock full strategic analysis of design patent enforcement in U.S. district court e-commerce actions, including comparable Schedule A campaign outcomes.
Amazon enforcement timeline§ 289 profits exposureSimilar D-patent campaigns
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Wu v JunW — key questions answered

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

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.

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

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

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