Vannisi et al. v. LiPang et al.

An appeal now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Vannisi et al. v. LiPang et al. (officially captioned Roadway Retail LLC v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Assns Identified), stems from a patent infringement action originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff in the district court, Roadway Retail LLC, appears to be an entity focused on patent enforcement, though its specific operational status as a practicing entity or a non-practicing entity (NPE) is not clearly established in public records. The defendants, including the named appellants Vannisi, WANMIKECHUANGUS, Feisate, VANEXISSUS, Youshengus, and Manbala, are part of a larger group of dozens of online sellers, many of whom are believed to be based in China and were collectively identified on a "Schedule A" in the original lawsuit. This "Schedule A" litigation strategy is an increasingly common method for patent holders to target numerous, often anonymous, online sellers of allegedly infringing goods in a single legal action.

The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 9,198,261, which relates to an "Illuminating device." The patent, issued in 2015, describes a lighting apparatus, such as an LED lamp, with a specific modular structure for its light source. The accused products are various lighting devices sold by the numerous defendants on online marketplaces that Roadway Retail alleges incorporate this patented technology. The original lawsuit in the Western District of Texas resulted in a default judgment against several of the defendant sellers, which occurs when defendants fail to respond to the complaint. A number of these sellers have now appealed that judgment to the Federal Circuit, the specialized appellate court with nationwide jurisdiction over patent cases.

The case is notable for several reasons. It exemplifies the widespread use of "Schedule A" complaints to enforce intellectual property rights against a diffuse and often hard-to-identify network of international e-commerce merchants. Such cases often move quickly and result in default judgments and injunctions that can freeze sellers' assets and remove their product listings from online platforms. The appeal to the Federal Circuit is significant because this court will have the opportunity to review the procedures and standards applied in the district court, particularly in the context of a default judgment against foreign entities who may face challenges in responding to U.S. litigation. The outcome could have a substantial impact on the strategies used by patent owners to police online marketplaces and the procedural safeguards available to the sellers they accuse of infringement.

Following the default judgment in the Western District of Texas, several defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Here are the key legal developments in chronological order.

District Court Proceedings (W.D. Texas)

• Complaint Filing (2025-09-17): Roadway Retail LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against dozens of online sellers, identified collectively on a "Schedule A," in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,198,261 by the defendants' sale of various lighting devices. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright.
• Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (2025-09-26): Roadway Retail filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order to freeze the assets of the defendant sellers held by third-party payment processors like PayPal and Amazon Pay. The court granted this motion, a common tactic in "Schedule A" cases to compel foreign defendants to appear.
• Preliminary Injunction (2025-10-15): After the defendants failed to appear at a scheduled hearing, the court converted the TRO into a preliminary injunction. This order continued the asset freeze and prohibited online marketplaces from providing services to the defendants, effectively shutting down their U.S. sales operations.
• Motion for Default Judgment (2025-12-08): With the majority of the "Schedule A" defendants having failed to respond to the lawsuit or otherwise appear, Roadway Retail moved for a default judgment against them.
• Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction (2026-02-11): The district court granted Roadway Retail's motion, entering a final default judgment and a permanent injunction against the non-appearing defendants. The judgment included an award of statutory damages and made the asset freezes permanent. It is this final judgment that formed the basis of the appeal.

PTAB Proceedings

• No Parallel PTAB Proceedings Found: A thorough search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database reveals no records of any Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings having been filed against U.S. Patent No. 9,198,261. Therefore, the litigation was not stayed pending any PTAB review, and the patent's validity was not concurrently challenged in that forum.

Federal Circuit Appeal (Case No. 26-1711)

• Notice of Appeal (2026-04-21): A group of the "Schedule A" defendants, including Vannisi, WANMIKECHUANGUS, and others, filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The official caption on appeal is Roadway Retail LLC v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Assns Identified.
• Current Posture (2026-05-02): The case is in the early stages of the appellate process. The appellants have filed their notice of appeal, and the case is now pending before the Federal Circuit. The key issues on appeal will likely concern the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendants, the propriety of the asset freeze, and the entry of a default judgment in a "Schedule A" context. Briefing schedules will be set, and the appeal will proceed toward oral argument and a final decision from the court. The litigation remains open and active on appeal.

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Roadway Retail LLC

As the case Vannisi et al. v. LiPang et al., No. 26-1711, is in the preliminary stages at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, counsel for the plaintiff-appellee, Roadway Retail LLC, has not yet formally filed a notice of appearance in the appeal as of May 2, 2026. However, the attorneys who represented the plaintiff in the underlying district court action are expected to continue their representation.

Counsel from the district court proceedings in the Western District of Texas are detailed below.

• Name: M. Cohen

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: M. Cohen Law Group, PC

• Office Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

• Notable Experience: M. Cohen is the principal of a firm that frequently represents plaintiffs in "Schedule A" intellectual property enforcement actions against large groups of online sellers.

• Name: Yitai Hu

• Role: Of Counsel

• Firm: M. Cohen Law Group, PC

• Office Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

• Notable Experience: Hu is often listed as counsel alongside M. Cohen in similar "Schedule A" patent and trademark infringement cases targeting online retailers.

• Name: D. Austin Tull

• Role: Local Counsel

• Firm: The Dacus Firm, PC

• Office Location: Tyler, TX

• Notable Experience: Tull frequently serves as local counsel in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas for out-of-state firms filing patent infringement lawsuits.

Counsel for Defendants-Appellants

As the appeal is in its early stages, having been docketed on April 21, 2026, the attorneys listed below have filed an initial entry of appearance on behalf of a subset of the defendants-appellants. Representation for other appealing parties, if any, may not yet be recorded on the docket.

The following attorneys have appeared for Appellants Feisate, Vanexiss-US, Vannisi, Wanmikechuang-US, and Youshengus.

• Name: Jianyin Liu

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: Not specified in initial filings.

• Office Location: Not specified in initial filings.

• Notable Experience: Information regarding this attorney's specific patent litigation experience is not readily available in public records.

• Name: Timothy Wang

• Role: Of Counsel (Expected)

• Firm: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC

• Office Location: Dallas, TX

• Notable Experience: Wang is an experienced intellectual property trial lawyer who has handled numerous patent, trademark, and copyright litigation matters in federal district courts, the ITC, and the Federal Circuit.

• Name: Hao Ni

• Role: Of Counsel (Expected)

• Firm: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC

• Office Location: Dallas, TX

• Notable Experience: Ni is a registered patent attorney with substantial experience in patent litigation and commercial disputes, having previously practiced at McKool Smith, P.C., and Patton Boggs, LLP.

It is common for firms specializing in defending foreign e-commerce sellers in "Schedule A" cases to appear on their behalf. Based on the appearance of Jianyin Liu, it is anticipated that attorneys from Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC, a firm with extensive experience representing clients in patent litigation, will be formally added to the case. The docket entry indicates that the deadline for entries of appearance is May 5, 2026, so the counsel list may be updated.

No counsel has formally appeared for the other named defendants-appellants LiPang, Vrasly, Roadway Retail LLC, or Huicocy as of May 2, 2026.