Funsnap & Allies v. Zhiyun: Gimbal Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Five Chinese consumer electronics brands — including Funsnap, iSleeky, and glorypeaceUS — jointly sued gimbal market leader Zhiyun over US11218047B2, a motor-control patent covering camera stabilizer technology. The case was resolved in just 155 days via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.
Five gimbal brands take on Zhiyun — and settle quietly in five months
In late December 2023, five China-based consumer electronics companies filed a patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co., Ltd., the manufacturer behind the well-known ZHIYUN brand of camera gimbal stabilizers. The lead plaintiff, Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co., Ltd. (trading as FUNSNAP Official), was joined by iSleeky, glorypeaceUS, ZHSH DIRECT USA, and AOCHUANGimbal — all sellers active on Amazon’s US marketplace. The asserted patent, US11218047B2, relates to motor control technology central to powered camera gimbal stabilizers.
The case closed on 31 May 2024 via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), signed by counsel for all parties. Dismissal with prejudice means neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant can relitigate the same claims against each other in future proceedings. Each side agreed to bear its own legal costs and fees — a mutual walk-away structure that suggests resolution short of any formal judgment or publicly disclosed monetary settlement.
A resolution in 155 days is notably fast for a multi-party patent infringement case, suggesting that pre-trial negotiations or business-level discussions progressed rapidly after filing. The public record does not disclose any licensing agreement, royalty arrangement, or admitted infringement, so the precise commercial terms — if any exist — remain unknown. The involvement of five co-plaintiffs, all active Amazon sellers in the gimbal category, may have been a strategic consolidation to amplify negotiating leverage against a dominant market player.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 155 days
155 days — well under the median N.D. Illinois patent case duration of ~2 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): a consensual, court-free exit
A stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties and takes effect without a court order. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical qualifier: it bars the same plaintiffs from reasserting the same patent claims against Zhiyun in any future federal action. This is the highest-finality voluntary exit mechanism available in US civil litigation.
Permanent bar on refilingPlaintiffs trade future claims for immediate resolution
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, the five plaintiff entities permanently relinquish their right to sue Zhiyun again on US11218047B2. This is a meaningful concession unless a private licensing deal or commercial agreement was reached concurrently — which the public record does not confirm. The each-party-bears-own-costs clause also means no fee recovery for the filing group, suggesting either a negotiated compromise or a recognition that the case carried litigation risk.
Claims extinguishedZhiyun secures permanent release from these plaintiffs
Guilin Zhishen (Zhiyun) exits the case without any admitted liability, court-imposed injunction, or damages award on the public record. The with-prejudice dismissal is a strong outcome for the defendant: these five co-plaintiffs cannot revive the same infringement theory against Zhiyun. However, the patent US11218047B2 remains in force and could be asserted by the plaintiffs against other third-party competitors in the gimbal market.
No liability admittedPatent still live — other gimbal sellers face ongoing exposure
The dismissal resolves only the dispute between these specific parties. US11218047B2 survives and the plaintiffs retain enforcement rights against any other market participant. For competing gimbal stabilizer brands selling into the US market — particularly via Amazon — this case signals that the patent holders are willing to litigate. Companies distributing camera stabilizer products in the US should treat this patent as an active risk requiring FTO analysis.
FTO review recommendedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer electronics sellers — holders of US11218047B2 gimbal patentSearch 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 | Zhongshan Yangguo Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Shenzhen Shuoyu Technology Co. Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co., Ltd. — maker of Zhiyun camera gimbalsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tao Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wei Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Glacier Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Funsnap Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lan Li | Attorney | Counsel for Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Anchor Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge LaShonda A. Hunt | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation explicitly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and designates dismissal ‘with prejudice’ — language that carries permanent preclusive effect under federal res judicata doctrine. No merits determination was made; the court issued no claim construction, infringement ruling, or validity finding. The each-party-bears-own-costs clause is commercially neutral and consistent with either a private settlement or a mutual decision to cease hostilities. The public record does not reveal which party, if either, obtained a commercial concession in exchange for the dismissal.
US11218047B2 — Camera Gimbal Motor Control Technology
US11218047B2, filed under application number US16/068790, covers motor control technology applicable to powered camera gimbal stabilizers — devices used to smooth video footage by compensating for camera shake across multiple axes. The patent’s technical domain sits at the intersection of brushless motor control, inertial measurement, and real-time feedback systems. Its grant by the USPTO reflects a determination that the claimed inventive step over prior art was sufficient to warrant protection in the US market.
In commercial terms, gimbal motor control is a foundational technology: the quality and responsiveness of stabilization is largely determined by how the motor control algorithm processes sensor data and drives the motors. A patent with meaningful claims in this space can create barriers to entry for any competitor manufacturing or importing 3-axis camera stabilizers into the US. The fact that multiple China-based sellers pooled resources to assert this patent against Zhiyun — the category’s most recognised brand — suggests the plaintiffs viewed the claims as commercially significant and broadly applicable to Zhiyun’s ASIN catalogue.
Should your gimbal product be cleared against US11218047B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing camera gimbal stabilizers in the United States should assess whether its products fall within the scope of US11218047B2. This is especially relevant for Amazon marketplace sellers, Kickstarter hardware brands, and OEM manufacturers supplying US-market gimbal products — the very categories targeted in this litigation. The case demonstrates that the patent holders are enforcement-minded and willing to file in a major US district court.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map the independent claims of US11218047B2 against specific product architectures, identify design-around opportunities, and surface any prior art that could form the basis of an IPR or ex parte reexamination challenge. Given the case resolved without a validity determination, the patent’s enforceability has not been publicly tested — making proactive clearance analysis the prudent first step for any player in the camera stabilizer market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11218047B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar gimbal and camera stabilizer patent cases in US federal courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving camera gimbal and motor control technology filed in the Northern District of Illinois and other US district courts.
What this case signals for the gimbal stabilizer IP landscape
A rapid five-month resolution involving five co-plaintiffs and a market leader points to a maturing enforcement environment in the gimbal sector.
Co-plaintiff consolidation is a growing tactic for Amazon sellers
Grouping five brand entities as co-plaintiffs amplifies filing credibility and negotiating weight while distributing legal costs. This structure is increasingly common among Chinese OEM-brand sellers asserting US patents against category leaders. IP teams monitoring consumer electronics enforcement should treat multi-plaintiff filings as a strategic signal, not a procedural anomaly.
155-day closure suggests off-docket resolution was already in progress
Cases dismissed with prejudice this quickly — before any substantive motion practice on the merits — typically indicate that business negotiations were underway before or shortly after filing. The no-cost-award clause reinforces a mutual walk-away. Whether a licensing deal was struck remains unconfirmed, but the speed and terms are consistent with a private commercial resolution.
Shenzhen v Guilin — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 31 May 2024 via a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party bears its own costs. No merits ruling, damages award, or injunction was issued. The dismissal permanently bars the plaintiffs from refiling the same claims against Zhiyun.
The asserted patent is US11218047B2 (application number US16/068790), which covers motor control technology relevant to powered camera gimbal stabilizers. The patent was asserted against Zhiyun-branded products sold on Amazon and identified by multiple product ASINs in the complaint.
Dismissal with prejudice means the five plaintiff entities — Funsnap, iSleeky, glorypeaceUS, ZHSH DIRECT USA, and AOCHUANGimbal — permanently relinquish their right to sue Guilin Zhishen (Zhiyun) again on the same patent claims. The patent US11218047B2 remains valid and can still be enforced against other defendants.
The 155-day resolution is notably fast for a multi-party patent infringement case in N.D. Illinois. This timeline is consistent with pre-trial negotiations or a private business resolution reached shortly after filing. The public record does not disclose any licensing agreement or settlement payment; the terms, if any, remain confidential.
No. The dismissal with prejudice only extinguishes claims between these specific parties. US11218047B2 remains in force, and the plaintiffs retain the right to assert it against other gimbal stabilizer companies operating in the US market. Competitors in the camera stabilizer segment should conduct an independent FTO analysis against this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.