Defendant

GD-Whitening

1 case as defendant.

Cases
1
Active
0
1 closed
Filed
2024
Top venue
N D Ill
1 case

Company profile

GD-Whitening — company profile

"GD-Whitening" is the trade name of Zhuhai Jiashu Dianzishangwu Youxiangongsi, named in court filings as a Chinese online retailer doing business as GD-Whitening. That is the extent of verified corporate detail: English- and Chinese-language business registries and press searches returned no confirmed headquarters address, formation date, employee count, revenue, or ownership record for this specific entity, and no reliable basis to identify it with similarly named Chinese companies. It is not publicly traded and shows no evidence of being a subsidiary of a larger corporate group.

On the available record it operates as a third-party e-commerce seller of teeth whitening products — the accused goods were whitening strips sold through online marketplaces. Court orders in the related litigation reference accounts held at Amazon Pay, eBay, PayPal, Payoneer and Walmart, consistent with a cross-border marketplace seller rather than a manufacturer with disclosed facilities. Its own corporate or product website could not be verified.

Litigation posture: purely defensive. GD-Whitening appears once in the tracked data, as a defendant, with zero plaintiff-side filings — the profile of an accused seller, not a patent assertion entity. It has no patent portfolio of its own on the public record.

Notable case: CAO Group, Inc. v. GD-Whitening, No. 1:24-cv-05129 (N.D. Ill., filed June 20, 2024, Judge Thomas M. Durkin). It was severed from CAO Group's mass "Schedule A" patent suit, No. 1:24-cv-01211, after GD-Whitening successfully argued misjoinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299; the court also dismissed CAO's unjust-enrichment count as preempted by federal patent law. CAO, a West Jordan, Utah dental-products maker, asserted five patents covering peroxide gel and whitening-strip technology. GD-Whitening's counsel (Husch Blackwell) withdrew in July 2024; the docket records a default judgment against it totaling $1,650,000 after trebling. The matter stayed in the Northern District of Illinois rather than a plaintiff-friendly Texas venue.