Marvel Wins $570K Judgment in 360-Degree Photo Booth Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Marvel (Xyz Corporation) v. The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| Case Number | 1:23-cv-24366 (S.D. Fla.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Duration | Nov 2023 – Jan 2026 2 years 2 months |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win — $570,945.71 Damages & Injunction |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | 360-degree camera devices featuring atmosphere lamps, camera platforms, and high-stability 360-degree photo booth systems |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
The patent-holding entity asserting rights in proprietary 360-degree photographic booth technology, represented by the Law Firm of Rubio & Associates, PA.
🛡️ Defendants
Chinese technology companies initially obscured behind U.S.-facing marketplace identities, found jointly and severally liable.
Patents at Issue
This case involved three U.S. patents strategically combining utility patents (covering functional camera platform mechanisms and atmospheric lighting integration) with a design patent (covering ornamental appearance).
- • US11720000B1 — 360-degree camera device with atmosphere lamp
- • US11719380B1 — Camera platform technology
- • USD0976993S — High-stability 360-degree photo booth (design)
Developing a 360-degree photo booth?
Check if your product design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
In a decisive ruling, the court found six China-based technology companies jointly and severally liable for infringing Marvel’s three patents, awarding $570,945.71 in monetary damages and granting Marvel entitlement to a permanent injunction.
Key Legal Issues
The infringement action was predicated on defendants’ unauthorized manufacture, importation, marketing, and sale of 360-degree photographic booth products that practiced claims covered by Marvel’s utility and design patent portfolio. The combination of utility patents on camera platform mechanics and atmosphere lamp integration, alongside a design patent on overall booth appearance, created a comprehensive enforcement net. The absence of defendant participation likely eliminated validity challenges, leading to uncontested liability findings.
Legal Significance
This case illustrates the Schedule A litigation framework functioning as intended: patent holders with registered IP can pursue anonymous e-commerce sellers, compel identification through discovery, and obtain enforceable judgments. The joint and several damages structure amplifies deterrence even when individual defendants have limited U.S. asset exposure.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in 360-degree photo booth design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in 360 photo booth patents
- Understand claim construction patterns
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
360-degree camera platforms & lighting
3 Patents Involved
Utility & Design patents
Strategic Protection
Layered Utility & Design IP
✅ Key Takeaways
Schedule A enforcement actions against overseas e-commerce defendants continue to yield uncontested liability findings when defendants fail to appear.
Search related case law →Layering utility and design patents in a single portfolio maximizes claim coverage and litigation leverage.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
Three patents: US11720000B1 (360-degree camera device with atmosphere lamp), US11719380B1 (camera platform), and USD0976993S (high-stability 360-degree photo booth design patent).
The court awarded $570,945.71 in monetary damages, assessed jointly and severally against six named Shenzhen-based technology companies.
The outcome reinforces the viability of Schedule A patent enforcement against overseas e-commerce sellers and signals that combined utility/design patent portfolios create substantial litigation risk for manufacturers in this product category.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida — Case 1:23-cv-24366
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
- Google Patents — Patent Database
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C.
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.