Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Juke Audio v. Zhongke Wanying: Patent Win & Injunction | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:25-cv-08469
FiledJul 2025
ClosedNov 2025
Patent Litigation

Juke Audio v. OpenAudio: Default Judgment, Injunction & $1.35M Damages in 120 Days

Juke Audio Inc. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against Zhongke Wanying (Beijing) Technology Co., doing business as OpenAudio, alleging infringement of US11166102, a patent covering whole-home audio distribution technology. The defendant failed to mount a defence, resulting in a default judgment with a permanent injunction and $1,350,303.57 in damages — resolved in just 120 days.

Resolution time
120days
120 days — significantly faster than the median N.D. Illinois patent case disposition
Patents asserted
1
US11166102 — whole-home wireless audio distribution system
Outcome
Injunction Granted
Default judgment entered; permanent injunction issued; damages of $1,350,303.57 awarded
Cost ruling
§ 285 Fees
Exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285; damages award of $1,350,303.57 against defendant
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

How a Chinese Audio Copycat Lost $1.35M Without a Fight

On 23 July 2025, Juke Audio Inc. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Zhongke Wanying (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd., operating under the brand name OpenAudio, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,166,102. The patent covers whole-home wireless audio distribution technology, and Juke Audio alleged that OpenAudio’s ‘Holo-Whas’ product family — including the Holo-Whas, Holo-Whas Plus, Holo-Whas Ultra, and related variants — directly infringed its protected technology while also mimicking Juke Audio’s own branded products.

The case closed on 20 November 2025, just 120 days after filing. OpenAudio failed to sustain a defence, and Judge Thomas M. Durkin entered default judgment in favour of Juke Audio. The court issued a sweeping permanent injunction barring the defendant from making, using, selling, or importing infringing products in the United States, ordered domain registrars to disable OpenAudio’s websites, directed third-party payment platforms including PayPal, Amazon, and eBay to freeze and release defendant’s funds, and awarded $1,350,303.57 in damages under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

The 120-day resolution is notably rapid and is consistent with default judgment timelines rather than contested litigation. OpenAudio’s counsel ultimately withdrew, leaving the defendant without representation — a pattern commonly seen when Chinese e-commerce defendants calculate that abandoning U.S. proceedings is less costly than mounting a defence. The public record does not disclose the full quantum of infringing sales or whether the damages award will be fully recoverable, given the defendant’s offshore status and asset profile.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:25-cv-08469
CourtIllinois Northern
JudgeThomas M. Durkin
FiledJuly 23, 2025
ClosedNovember 20, 2025
Duration120 days
OutcomeInjunction Granted
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisInjunction Granted
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Illinois Northern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Injunction Granted in 120 days

120 days — significantly faster than the median N.D. Illinois patent case disposition

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUL 23 2025, SEP–OCT — 120 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Juke Audio Inc. v Zhongke Wanying (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. JUL 23 2025 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings NOV 20 2025 Injunction Granted 120 DAYS TOTAL
Court ruling

Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Default judgment: the court rules without the defendant

When a defendant fails to appear or adequately defend, the court may enter judgment by default. Here, OpenAudio’s counsel withdrew and the company did not sustain its defence, allowing Judge Durkin to accept Juke Audio’s allegations as uncontested. Default judgment is a plaintiff win on the merits by procedural failure, and the damages and injunction are as legally binding as any contested verdict.

Procedural default — full relief granted
Patent holder outcome

Juke Audio secures maximum relief: injunction plus $1.35M

Juke Audio obtained the full suite of available remedies: a permanent injunction halting all U.S. sales and importation of infringing Holo-Whas products, website disablement, third-party platform account freezes, and a damages award of $1,350,303.57. The order also grants Juke Audio ongoing authority to serve the judgment on newly discovered financial accounts — an unusually broad enforcement tool that significantly strengthens its collection position.

Permanent injunction + damages secured
Defendant outcome

OpenAudio faces U.S. market lockout and asset seizure

Zhongke Wanying is enjoined from all U.S.-facing sales activity, its domains have been ordered disabled, and its accounts across Amazon, eBay, PayPal, and other platforms are subject to immediate asset release to Juke Audio. The finding that OpenAudio engaged in false advertising — including fake reviews and false certifications — adds reputational exposure beyond the financial judgment and may complicate any future market re-entry attempt under a different brand.

Full U.S. market lockout ordered
Commercial implications

A blueprint for enforcing audio tech patents against e-commerce infringers

This case illustrates a proven enforcement playbook: file in a favourable U.S. district, obtain early interim relief (TRO and preliminary injunction), freeze third-party payment accounts, and drive toward default when offshore defendants disengage. For the whole-home audio sector, the outcome signals that US11166102 carries real enforcement bite, and that sellers of competing wireless multi-room audio systems should treat this patent as an active risk requiring FTO analysis before U.S. market entry.

Strong enforcement signal for audio IP
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:25-cv-08469 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffJuke Audio Inc.CompanyWhole-home audio technology company — holder of US11166102Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantZhongke Wanying (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.CompanyBeijing-based consumer audio hardware seller operating as OpenAudio in the U.S. marketSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBenjamin E. WeedAttorneyCounsel for Juke Audio Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmThe Ridge Wallet, LLCLaw FirmRepresenting Juke Audio Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMingzi OuyangAttorneyCounsel for Zhongke Wanying (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRuoting MenAttorneyCounsel for Zhongke Wanying (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselTao LiuAttorneyCounsel for Zhongke Wanying (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselWei WangAttorneyCounsel for Zhongke Wanying (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmGlacier Law LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Zhongke Wanying (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmValley & Summit LawLaw FirmRepresenting Zhongke Wanying (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Thomas M. DurkinJudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Juke Audio Inc. (“Juke Audio”) against Defendant Zhongke Wanying (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a OpenAudio (“Defendant”). Plaintiff having moved for entry of Default and Default Judgment, and a Permanent Injunction, against Defendant, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 1. Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them are enjoined and restrained from: a. making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing into the United States any product that infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,166,102 (the “‘102 Patent”), including products sold under the “Holo-Whas” product family / brand name, and specifically including at least the following:Defendant shall not cause or permit any web pages within any domain within its control, including https://www.openaudiohome.com and https://www.wholehome-audio.com, relating, depicting, selling, or offering to sell, to the products identified in Paragraph 1.a above, to be visible to any user located in the United States, and shall not sell or offer to sell such products identified in Paragraph 1.a above to users located in the United States via those domains or via any other mechanism Defendant shall not engage in false or misleading advertising, including (but not limited to) by (a) posting false reviews on its or other web pages, (b) falsely claiming its products are certified or approved by certification bodies, (c) falsely claiming its products have won awards, (d) falsely reflecting its presence in the United States and/or its manufacturing facilities, and/or (e) making any other false or misleading statements in an attempt to paint itself as a more reputable company than it is, or as a legitimate seller of Plaintiff’s technology. 4. The domain name registrars or other entities responsible for providing web registration or hosting services to Defendant for Defendant’s domain name of either https://www.openaudiohome.com or https://www.wholehome-audio.com, including, but not limited to, VeriSign, Inc., Neustar, Inc., Afilias Limited, CentralNic, Nominet, and the Public Interest Registry, and the domain name registrars, including, but not limited to, GoDaddy Operating Company LLC, Name.com, PDR LTD. d/b/a/ PublicDomainRegistry.com, Namecheap Inc., and/or Beijing Sanfront Information Technology Co., Ltd (http://www.guokeyun.com), within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order, shall disable the defendant’s domain names and make them inactive and untransferable. 5. Upon Juke Audio’s request, those with notice of this Order shall within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of such notice, disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with Defendant in connection with the sale of goods infringing the ‘102 Patent, including at least those infringing goods listed in Paragraph 1.a above. 6. Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, Plaintiff is awarded damages in the amount of $1,350,303.57 against Defendant.Plaintiff may serve this Order on third parties, including PayPal, Alibaba, Amazon, DHGate, eBay, Google, Apple, and any other provider providing payment and/or fulfilment services to Defendant (“Third Party Providers”), by e-mail delivery to the e-mail addresses Plaintiff used to serve the Temporary Restraining Order and/or the Preliminary Injunction on any Third Party Providers. 8. Upon receipt of this Order, Third Party Providers shall within seven (7) calendar days: a. locate all accounts and funds connected to Defendant; b. restrain and enjoin such accounts or funds from transferring or disposing of any money or other of Defendant’s assets; and c. release all monies and other property, up to the above identified damages award, restrained in Defendant’s financial accounts to Plaintiff as partial payment of the above-identified damages. 9. All monies and property, up to the above identified damages award, in Defendant’s financial accounts or in Third Party Providers’ warehouses, including monies and property held by Third Party Providers, are hereby released to Plaintiff as partial payment of the above-identified damages, and Third Party Providers are ordered to release to Plaintiff the amounts from Defendant’s financial accounts and any on-hand, infringing inventory of Defendant within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order. 10. Until Plaintiff has recovered full payment of monies owed to it by Defendant, Plaintiff shall have the ongoing authority to serve this Order on Third Party Providers in the event that any new financial accounts controlled or operated by Defendant are identified. 11. In the event that Plaintiff identifies any additional online marketplaces or financial accounts owned by Defendant, Plaintiff may send notice of any supplemental proceeding to Defendant by e-mail at the following email addresses, identified in Defendant’s most recent counsel’s withdrawal filings: [email protected] and [email protected], and any e-mail addresses provided for Defendant by any third parties. 12. The one-thousand-dollar ($1,000.00) cash bond posted by Plaintiff is hereby released to Plaintiff’s counsel, Benjamin E. Weed, Esq. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the cash bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court to Plaintiff’s counsel.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:25-cv-08469, Illinois Northern District Court

The default judgment order is comprehensive in both its prohibitory and mandatory terms. By incorporating false advertising restrictions alongside the patent injunction, the court treated this as an egregious infringement scenario — consistent with an exceptional case finding under § 285. The damages figure of $1,350,303.57 appears to reflect Juke Audio’s calculation of infringer profits or lost sales across the identified product family. The order’s asset-recovery provisions — directing third-party platforms to release funds within seven days — represent an aggressive but increasingly standard approach in N.D. Illinois e-commerce infringement cases.

PACER case 1:25-cv-08469 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US11166102 — Whole-Home Wireless Audio Distribution System

Publication No.US11166102B2
Application No.US16/681732
Patent details
ProductWireless multi-room audio distribution system enabling whole-home speaker networking
Cited in actionJuly 23, 2025

U.S. Patent No. 11,166,102 (Application No. 16/681,732) covers technology for whole-home wireless audio distribution — enabling multiple speakers or audio zones in a residence to receive and play synchronised audio content over a network. The patent sits at the intersection of consumer electronics and networked media systems, addressing the technical challenge of reliable multi-room audio synchronisation. Its issuance as a B2 grant reflects substantive examination and a post-examination correction process, lending additional claim durability.

For the whole-home audio sector, US11166102 represents a meaningful competitive asset. The breadth of products found to infringe — spanning entry-level, plus, and ultra-tier variants of the Holo-Whas line — suggests the patent’s independent claims reach across product tiers rather than being limited to a single configuration. Competitors developing or selling Wi-Fi or wireless-based multi-room audio systems for the U.S. market should treat this patent as an active blocking position, particularly given that Juke Audio has now demonstrated both willingness and capability to enforce it aggressively through the U.S. courts.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO analysis against US11166102?

Any hardware or software company bringing a whole-home or multi-room wireless audio product to the U.S. market should treat US11166102 as a priority FTO target. The Juke Audio v. OpenAudio outcome demonstrates that this patent has already survived the default judgment standard with broad product coverage confirmed across multiple SKUs and price tiers. If your product enables zone-based or whole-home audio distribution — whether via Wi-Fi, mesh networking, or proprietary protocols — an FTO analysis against this patent’s claim set is commercially prudent before U.S. launch or distribution agreement execution.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US11166102 against your product’s technical architecture, flag prosecution history estoppel that may narrow the claim scope, and identify any post-grant proceedings that could affect enforceability. Given that no IPR or inter partes proceedings are reflected in the public record for this patent, the claim set appears intact — making a full claim-chart FTO analysis the most reliable risk-mitigation step available to product teams and in-house counsel.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11166102B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar Whole-Home Audio Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts

Cases involving wireless multi-room audio patents enforced in U.S. district courts, including N.D. Illinois e-commerce default judgment patterns and consumer audio IP disputes.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Juke Audio Inc. patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern case history, Juke Audio Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Sonos v. Google (audio sync)N.D. Ill. default judgmentsWireless audio patent trendsChinese e-commerce IP cases
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the whole-home audio IP landscape

A rapid default judgment with sweeping third-party enforcement tools sets a clear precedent for how U.S. patent holders can neutralise offshore e-commerce infringers.

Third-party platform orders are the real enforcement lever in e-commerce IP cases

The judgment’s most powerful feature is not the $1.35M award but the order compelling Amazon, eBay, PayPal, and others to freeze and release defendant funds within seven days. For companies monitoring infringement on online marketplaces, building this mechanism into early injunction requests is now a demonstrably effective strategy worth replicating.

Counsel withdrawal signals defendant capitulation — accelerate to default judgment

When opposing counsel withdraws in cross-border IP disputes, it typically signals the defendant has made a commercial decision to abandon the U.S. market rather than incur litigation costs. Plaintiffs should be prepared to move swiftly to default judgment and asset-freeze motions at this inflection point rather than waiting for formal non-response filings.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper analysis on whole-home audio patent risk at the N.D. Illinois district court level, including claim mapping and enforcement replication strategies.
Claim scope risk mapRelated entity monitoringMarketplace enforcement tactics
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Juke v Zhongke — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Track whole-home audio patent risk before your next U.S. product launch

US11166102 is an actively enforced patent with a confirmed injunction and seven-figure damages award. Use PatSnap Eureka to run an FTO analysis, monitor litigation activity, and identify competitive patent positions in the wireless audio space.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.