Untitled case

A newly filed patent infringement case in the Northern District of Illinois pits an individual, Juanren Wu, against a sealed list of defendants, typifying a recent trend in design patent enforcement against online sellers. Filed on April 21, 2026, the lawsuit alleges that numerous unnamed "Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations" are infringing U.S. Design Patent No. D1049230 by selling certain "painting pen tips." The identity of the plaintiff, Juanren Wu, is not yet clear; it is unknown if Wu is the original inventor enforcing their own design or a patent assertion entity (PAE) that has acquired the patent for litigation purposes. This pattern of filing a single lawsuit against a large number of defendants whose identities are hidden in a sealed "Schedule A" is a common strategy used to combat the sale of allegedly infringing goods on e-commerce platforms.

The technology at issue is the ornamental design of a painting pen tip, as claimed in the asserted D'230 patent. Design patents protect the unique visual qualities of a manufactured item. The infringement allegation, therefore, centers on the claim that the defendants' products have an appearance that is substantially the same as the design shown in Wu's patent. The defendants are a large group of presumably online merchants whose specific identities have been filed with the court under seal. This tactic is often employed by plaintiffs to prevent defendants from hiding assets or disappearing from online marketplaces upon learning of the lawsuit, enabling the plaintiff to seek effective preliminary relief like a temporary restraining order to freeze seller accounts.

The case (1:26-cv-04497) is before Senior District Judge Robert W. Gettleman in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a major venue for intellectual property litigation that has established specific local rules for handling patent cases. The plaintiff is represented by attorney William Jeffrey Hausman of Ford Banister, LLC. This case is notable less for the specific technology involved and more for its procedural characteristics, which align with a broader enforcement trend. Lawsuits against a sealed "Schedule A" of defendants have become a significant part of the patent litigation landscape, particularly for design patents. These cases raise questions about due process for defendants who may be difficult to locate and serve, and they reflect the challenges patent holders face when trying to enforce their rights against a diffuse and often anonymous global marketplace of online sellers. At this early stage, there is no public record of any parallel challenges to the D'230 patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

As of 2026-05-02, the patent infringement litigation Wu v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1:26-cv-04497, is in its nascent stages, with key developments limited to the initial filings. The case follows a common pattern for design patent enforcement against numerous online sellers, where the initial court actions are primarily procedural and often sealed.

Key Legal Developments (Chronological)

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2026-04-21)

• Complaint: Plaintiff Juanren Wu filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit alleges that the defendants, whose identities are listed on a sealed "Schedule A," are infringing U.S. Design Patent No. D1049230, which covers an ornamental design for a "painting pen tip." The case was assigned to Senior District Judge Robert W. Gettleman.
• Sealed 'Schedule A': Concurrent with the complaint, the plaintiff's attorney, William Jeffrey Hausman of Ford Banister, LLC, filed the list of defendants as a sealed "Schedule A." A motion to keep this document sealed was also filed. This procedure is typical in such cases to prevent defendants, often overseas online merchants, from moving assets or closing their online stores to evade the lawsuit upon being notified.
• No Answer or Counterclaims: As the case was filed very recently and the defendants are a large, unidentified group, no answers or counterclaims have been filed. The defendants have not yet been formally served or appeared in court.

Pre-Trial Motions and Orders

• Expected Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO): While not yet visible on public dockets, it is standard practice in "Schedule A" patent cases to file an ex parte motion for a TRO along with the complaint. This motion would ask the court to immediately freeze the defendants' assets held by third-party payment processors and to de-list their accused product storefronts from e-commerce platforms. Given the filing date, a ruling on this likely motion would be the next significant event in the case. No substantive motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay have been filed.

Litigation Status and Outlook

As of early May 2026, the case is procedurally just beginning. The critical next step will be the court's decision on the plaintiff's anticipated motion for a TRO. If granted, the order will be served on e-commerce platforms and financial service providers to halt the defendants' allegedly infringing sales and freeze their funds. Following that, the plaintiff will begin efforts to serve the defendants and bring them into the litigation.

The case has not advanced to stages involving claim construction, significant discovery, or trial. Its outcome will likely depend on which defendants, if any, appear to challenge the allegations. Many "Schedule A" cases conclude with default judgments against non-appearing defendants and settlements with those who do appear.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records shows no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions have been filed challenging the validity of U.S. Design Patent No. D1049230. It is too early in the litigation for such a filing to be expected.

Based on a review of court records and the law firm's public information, the following counsel is representing the plaintiff in this matter.

Plaintiff's Counsel

• Name & Role: William Jeffrey Hausman, Lead Counsel.
• Firm & Location: Ford Banister, LLC, New York, NY.
• Relevant Experience: Mr. Hausman and his firm specialize in intellectual property enforcement, particularly representing brand owners in "Schedule A" lawsuits that target numerous online sellers simultaneously for trademark, copyright, and patent infringement. Public dockets show Mr. Hausman frequently files these multi-defendant, sealed-schedule cases in the Northern District of Illinois, indicating significant experience with the specific procedures of this case type.

Defendant's Counsel

As of 2026-05-02, no attorney has filed an appearance on behalf of any defendant. The defendants are currently an anonymous group of entities listed on a sealed "Schedule A" and have not yet been formally served or appeared in court.

As of May 2, 2026, no defense counsel has appeared on behalf of any defendant in this case.

The case was filed on April 21, 2026, and the defendants are a large, anonymous group of "Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations" whose identities are listed on a sealed "Schedule A". This procedural tactic is common in design patent and trademark enforcement against numerous online sellers, as it allows the plaintiff to seek an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) to freeze the sellers' accounts before they are formally notified of the lawsuit.

Given the very early stage of the litigation and the fact that defendants have likely not yet been served, it is expected that no attorneys have filed a notice of appearance. The first notice of the lawsuit for most defendants typically comes when their online marketplace accounts are frozen pursuant to a TRO. Only after this occurs might individual defendants retain counsel to challenge the order, settle the claims, or otherwise appear in the case.