Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Infringement action filed 25 Sep 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and closed 28 Dec 2023, with US11218047B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US11218047B2
- Application no.
- US16/068790
- Case no.
- 3:23-cv-02134
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Jane J Boyle
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 25 Sep 2023 – 28 Dec 2023
- Duration
- 94 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Plastic motor for handheld stabilizer
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Plastic motor for handheld stabilizer
The present invention provides a plastic motor for a handheld stabilizer, comprising an upper bearing, a lower bearing, motor iron cores, an iron core carrier, a hollow metal motor shaft, a locking structure, a motor shell and a motor end cover, wherein at least one of the iron core carrier, the motor shell and the motor end cover is made of plastic material, the hollow metal motor shaft passes through the center of the upper bearing, the iron core carrier and the lower bearing in sequence, and a locking structure is provided at the other end of the hollow metal motor shaft. By the plastic motor for a handheld stabilizer disclosed in the present invention, problems in the prior art such as high cost of motors for handheld stabilizers, low production efficiency, difficulty in threading, tending to deform after loading and short service life are solved.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 4 Jan 2022
- Earliest priority
- 11 Apr 2017
- Est. expiry
- 8 Sep 2038
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LIAO, YILUN
- Classification
- H02K5/08H02K5/02H02K7/00H02K7/14F16M11/06H02K5/16F16M13/04
- Prosecution counsel
- Rimon PC
- Examiner
- KENERLY, TERRANCE L
Parties of record
Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Hao Ni, Esq.
- Firm
- Ni, Wang & Massand PLLC
- Also named
- Glory Peace Limited · Shenzhen Zong Heng Si Hai E-commerce Co., Ltd. · Shuoyu Technology Co., Ltd. · Zhongshan Yangguo Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.
Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- H02K5/08H02K5/02H02K7/00H02K7/14
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Hao Ni, Esq. | Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co., Ltd. | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiffs Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co. Ltd. d/b/a FUNSNAP Official, Shenzhen Shuoyu Technology Co. Ltd. d/b/a iSleeky, Glory Peace Limited d/b/a glorypeaceUS, Shenzhen Zong Heng Si Hai E-commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/a ZHSH DIRECT USA, and Zhongshan Yangguo Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a AOCHUANGimbal hereby voluntarily dismisses all claims in this action without prejudice against Defendant Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co., Ltd. Prior to the filing of this notice, Defendant Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co., Ltd. has not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment.”
Case 3:23-cv-02134 · N.D. Tex. · closed 28 December 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 3:23-cv-02134?
3:23-cv-02134 is a patent infringement action brought by Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co., Ltd. against Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co., Ltd., filed on 25 Sep 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case closed on 28 December 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 3:23-cv-02134?
US11218047B2 (“Plastic motor for handheld stabilizer”), assigned to GUILIN ZHISHEN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., currently inactive. The record also lists Plastic motor for handheld stabilizer.
How was case 3:23-cv-02134 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiffs Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co. Ltd. d/b/a FUNSNAP Official, Shenzhen Shuoyu Technology Co. Ltd. d/b/a iSleeky, Glory Peace Limited d/b/a glorypeaceUS, Shenzhen Zong Heng Si Hai E-commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/a ZHSH DIRECT USA, and Zhongshan Yangguo Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a AOCHUANGimbal hereby voluntarily dismisses all claims in this action without prejudice against Defendant Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co., Ltd. Prior to the filing of this notice, Defendant Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co., Ltd. has not filed a
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 3:23-cv-02134 take?
94 calendar days, from filing on 25 Sep 2023 to closure on 28 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:23-cv-02134?
Chief Judge Jane J Boyle presided. Hao Ni, Esq. is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Shenzhen Funsnap Technology.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:23-cv-02134 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.