Funsnap v. Guilin Zhishen: Infringement Action Dismissed Without Prejudice in 94 Days
Five Chinese consumer-electronics plaintiffs, led by Shenzhen Funsnap Technology, sued Guilin Zhishen Information Technology in the Northern District of Texas over US11218047B2, covering plastic motors for handheld stabilizers. All claims were voluntarily dropped without prejudice before the defendant filed any responsive pleading — closing the case in just 94 days.
Five Plaintiffs, One Patent, Zero Merits Ruling: A 94-Day Texas Filing
On 25 September 2023, five affiliated Chinese technology and e-commerce entities — Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co., Ltd. (d/b/a FUNSNAP Official), Glory Peace Limited, Shenzhen Zong Heng Si Hai E-commerce Co., Ltd., Shuoyu Technology Co., Ltd., and Zhongshan Yangguo Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. — jointly filed an infringement action in the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:23-cv-02134) before Judge Jane J. Boyle, asserting US11218047B2 against Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co., Ltd., relating to plastic motors used in handheld stabilizers.
The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed without Prejudice. The docket order reflects a voluntary dismissal filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), stating that all claims against Guilin Zhishen are dismissed without prejudice. The notice expressly confirms that the defendant had not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment prior to the filing of the dismissal notice. The specific terms underlying the dismissal, if any, are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on 28 December 2023 — just 94 days after filing — without any court ruling on the merits, claim construction, or validity of US11218047B2. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal filed before the defendant has answered is self-executing, requiring no court order, which explains the speed of resolution. What prompted the withdrawal at this early stage is not apparent from the public record. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the plaintiffs retain the right to refile claims on the same patent against the same defendant in future proceedings.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 94 days
94 days — resolved before defendant filed an answer or summary judgment motion
US11218047B2 — Plastic Motor for Handheld Stabilizer
Any company designing, importing, or selling handheld stabilizer products in the U.S. market — particularly those incorporating plastic motor assemblies — should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US11218047B2. The patent has not been invalidated or adjudicated, and the dismissal without prejudice leaves enforcement options fully intact for the plaintiff group. OEMs, platform sellers, and component manufacturers in the gimbal sector are directly in scope.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly states that Guilin Zhishen had not answered or filed a summary judgment motion, confirming the self-executing nature of the withdrawal. No merits determination was made. The without-prejudice designation leaves the patent enforceable and the infringement claims legally alive for future proceedings.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the voluntary withdrawal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): A self-executing dismissal
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. The docket confirms Guilin Zhishen had filed neither, making this dismissal self-executing and automatic upon filing. No judicial approval was required or obtained.
No court order neededWithout prejudice: claims survive for potential refiling
A dismissal without prejudice does not adjudicate the merits and does not bar the plaintiffs from reasserting the same infringement claims in a new action. US11218047B2 remains in force and unadjudicated. Whether the plaintiffs intend to refile — in Texas or another venue — is not indicated in the available record.
Claims may be refiledGuilin Zhishen exits without any adverse finding
Guilin Zhishen Information Technology was dismissed before filing any responsive pleading. There is no judgment, injunction, or damages finding against it. However, the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means the litigation risk tied to US11218047B2 is not permanently extinguished. The defendant's IP posture relative to this patent remains a live commercial consideration.
No adverse ruling enteredHandheld stabilizer patent remains an active enforcement risk
US11218047B2 covering plastic motors for handheld stabilizers has not been tested in court. Competitors and OEMs in the gimbal and stabilizer segment should note that the patent remains enforceable and the dismissal without prejudice leaves enforcement options open to the plaintiff group. Freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent remains relevant for the sector.
Patent unadjudicatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Glory Peace Limited | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Shenzhen Zong Heng Si Hai E-commerce Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Shuoyu Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Zhongshan Yangguo Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hao Ni, Esq. | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni, Wang & Massand PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jane J Boyle | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the handheld stabilizer and gimbal motor space
Patent activity around handheld stabilizer motors is accelerating — here is what the Funsnap portfolio and the broader gimbal IP landscape signal for R&D teams.
Funsnap's IP footprint in gimbal motor technology
Shenzhen Funsnap Technology's assertion of US11218047B2 suggests active U.S. patent enforcement as part of a broader IP strategy. R&D teams should map Funsnap's full patent portfolio to understand the breadth of its motor and stabilizer IP, identify adjacent claim territories, and anticipate further enforcement actions in the consumer gimbal segment.
Funsnap portfolio watchFiling trends in plastic motor and gimbal stabilizer IP
Handheld gimbal stabilizers have attracted significant patent filing activity as consumer imaging technology matures. Plastic motor components — balancing cost, weight, and performance — represent a contested innovation frontier. Tracking filing trends in this sub-domain can reveal which players are building defensive or offensive portfolios ahead of market consolidation.
Gimbal motor filing trendsGuilin Zhishen's patent portfolio in the stabilizer sector
Guilin Zhishen Information Technology is an established gimbal hardware manufacturer. Understanding its own patent holdings — in motor design, stabilisation algorithms, or mechanical systems — is essential context for assessing the competitive IP dynamic in this dispute and for identifying potential cross-licensing or design-around opportunities.
Guilin Zhishen IP mapAdjacent innovation opportunities near US11218047B2
The plastic motor claim scope in US11218047B2 may leave adjacent design space open — including alternative materials, motor housing geometries, or integrated damping systems. R&D teams looking to develop next-generation handheld stabilizer components should use patent landscape tools to identify unclaimed technical approaches that sidestep existing rights.
Stabilizer design-around spaceSimilar patent infringement cases in the handheld stabilizer and gimbal sector
Explore related patent infringement actions in the gimbal and handheld stabilizer technology space, including cases filed in Texas federal courts involving consumer electronics motor patents.
What this case signals for the handheld stabilizer IP landscape
A fast voluntary withdrawal before any answer signals strategic optionality — not necessarily a clean exit for the sector.
Pre-answer dismissals in patent cases often precede venue changes or settlements
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal before the defendant answers is one of the fastest ways to exit a case without prejudice. In patent disputes, this pattern is consistent with a plaintiff reconsidering venue, reassessing claim scope, or reaching an undisclosed arrangement. The specific reason here is not in the public record.
US11218047B2 remains unadjudicated — FTO analysis is still essential
No court has ruled on the validity or infringement scope of US11218047B2. Companies designing or selling handheld stabilizer motors should treat this patent as an active risk. The plaintiff group's ability to refile means the window for proactive FTO and invalidity analysis remains open — and strategically valuable.
Shenzhen v Guilin — key questions answered
Shenzhen Funsnap Technology and four co-plaintiffs filed a patent infringement action against Guilin Zhishen Information Technology in the Northern District of Texas on 25 September 2023, asserting US11218047B2. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 28 December 2023 — 94 days after filing — before the defendant filed any answer or motion for summary judgment.
The asserted patent is US11218047B2, filed under application number US16/068790, covering a plastic motor for a handheld stabilizer. No court ruled on the validity, infringement, or claim scope of the patent in this case.
Dismissed without prejudice means the plaintiffs withdrew their claims without any adjudication of the merits. The patent remains valid and enforceable, and the plaintiffs retain the right to refile the same infringement claims against Guilin Zhishen or other parties in future proceedings. The dismissal does not extinguish the underlying enforcement rights.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order if the defendant has not yet filed an answer or summary judgment motion. The docket confirms Guilin Zhishen had not done so, making the dismissal self-executing upon filing. The specific reason the plaintiffs chose to withdraw at this stage is not disclosed in the public record.
Yes. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the patent is unadjudicated and the plaintiff group retains enforcement rights. Companies manufacturing, importing, or selling handheld stabilizer products incorporating plastic motors in the U.S. market should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against US11218047B2, given the potential for refiling.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.