Book a demo

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

Try now
Shenzhen Peishi v. Envoylei: Patent Default Judgment | PatSnap
Patent Litigation

Shenzhen Peishi v. Envoylei: Default Judgment on Automatic Smoker Patent

Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd. secured a default judgment against Envoylei in the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of US12324440B1, covering an automatic smoker. The court awarded $24,558.07 in damages and issued a permanent injunction — all within 80 days of filing.

Resolution time
80days
Case resolved in 80 days — well below typical patent litigation timelines, driven by defendant's failure to appear.
Patents asserted
1
US12324440B1 — automatic smoker device; single patent asserted
Outcome
Default Judgment
Court entered default judgment against Envoylei after defendant failed to appear or respond.
Cost ruling
$24,558.07
Damages awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for willful patent infringement via defendant's online store.
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Default judgment and permanent injunction against online seller of automatic smoker

On January 13, 2026, Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd., a Chinese advertising and product company and holder of US12324440B1, filed suit against Envoylei in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Mary M. Rowland. The case concerned alleged infringement of Plaintiff's patent covering an automatic smoker device, with Envoylei accused of selling infringing products through online marketplace channels including at least one identified internet store.

The recorded basis of termination is Default Judgment. The docket order states that the court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment, finding Defendant in default after failing to appear. The court awarded $24,558.07 in damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for willful infringement and issued a permanent injunction barring Envoylei from manufacturing, importing, distributing, or selling any product practising the invention claimed in Plaintiff's patent without authorisation. Third-party online platforms and payment processors — including Amazon, Alibaba, eBay, Wish.com, PayPal, and Alipay — were ordered to freeze and release Envoylei's funds within seven to fourteen days.

The case closed on April 3, 2026, just 80 days after filing — a timeline consistent with default proceedings where no contested litigation took place. The swift resolution reflects Envoylei's complete absence from the litigation. Whether any underlying settlement or licensing discussions occurred outside the formal record is not disclosed in the available record.

See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →
Case at a glance
DefendantEnvoylei
CourtIllinois Northern District Court
JudgeMary M. Rowland
FiledJanuary 13, 2026
ClosedApril 3, 2026
Duration80 days
OutcomeDefault Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDefault Judgment
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 Default Judgment in 80 days

Case resolved in 80 days — well below typical patent litigation timelines, driven by defendant's failure to appear.

Case timeline: Complaint filed JAN 13 2026 — 80 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd. v Envoylei from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. JAN 13 2026 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings APR 3 2026 Default Judgment 80 DAYS TOTAL
Patent at issue

US12324440B1 — automatic smoker device patent

Publication No.US12324440B1
Application No.US18/900993
Patent details
ProductAutomatic smoker device
Cited in actionJanuary 13, 2026
Technical brief · sourced from PatSnap patent database
Patent figurePatent figure
Representative claim (1 of 1 independent)
1. An automatic smoker comprising: a smoker body; a pipe having a combustion chamber, wherein an inner wall of the combustion chamber is defined with at least one smoke outlet port; and a base, wherein the pipe is arranged between the smoker body and the base, the smoker body and the base are detachably assembled, and the smoker body and the base are configured to secure the pipe therebetween during assembly; and wherein the smoker body comprises: a casing comprising a housing and a bottom cover, wherein the housing has a mounting cavity, the bottom cover is connected to one side of the housing close to the base,…
Technical background
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS This application claims priority benefits to Chinese Patent Application No. 2024222666131, filed on Sep. 14, 2024, and Chinese Patent Application No. 2024222659759, filed on Sep. 14, 2024, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference. TECHNICAL FIELD The present disclosure relates to the technical field of smokers, and in particular, to an automatic smoker. BACKGROUND Smokers are primarily used to smoke food, ingredients, or beverages to give them a unique smoky…
Patent family
2 family members across 1 jurisdiction (US)
PatSnap Eureka · FTO Search Agent
Should you run an FTO against US12324440B1?

Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling automatic smoker devices in the United States — whether through Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, or direct channels — should assess freedom-to-operate against US12324440B1. The permanent injunction in this case covers products 'practising the invention claimed,' meaning claim scope, not product name, determines infringement risk. Sellers of functionally similar cooking automation devices are not automatically excluded from risk.

Run FTO in Eureka
Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

Accordingly, this Court orders that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED as follows, that Defendant is deemed in default, and that this Default Judgment is entered against Defendant. This Court further orders that: 1. Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them be permanently enjoined and restrained from:manufacturing, distributing, offering for sale, selling in the United States any product that practices the invention claimed Plaintiff’s Patent that is not a genuine Plaintiff product or not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the Plaintiff’s Patent; b. importing into the United States any product that practices the invention claimed in Plaintiff’ that is not a genuine Plaintiff product or not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the Plaintiff’s Patent; c. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a genuine Plaintiff product or any other product produced by Plaintiff, that is not Plaintiff’s or not produced under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff and approved by Plaintiff for sale under Plaintiff’s Patent; d. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defendant’s product are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff; and manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, products or inventory not manufactured by or for Plaintiff, nor authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered for sale, and which practice the invention claimed in Plaintiff’s Patent. 2. Defendant and any third party with actual notice of this Order who is providing services for the Defendant, or in connection with the Defendant’s Online Marketplace, including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as eBay, Inc., AliExpress, Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. (“Alibaba”), Amazon.com, ContextLogic, Inc. d/b/a Wish.com (“Wish.com”), and Dhgate (collectively, the “Third Party Providers”), shall within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order cease:a. using, linking to, transferring, selling, exercising control over, or otherwise owning the Online Marketplace Accounts, or any other online marketplace account that is being used to sell or is the means by which Defendant could continue to sell infringing goods using the invention claimed in Plaintiff’s Patent; and b. operating and/or hosting websites that are involved with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any Plaintiff’s Patent product or any reproductions, counterfeit copies or colorable imitations thereof that is not a genuine Plaintiff product or not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the Plaintiff’s Patent. 3. Upon Plaintiff’s request, those with notice of this Order, including the Third Party Providers as defined in Paragraph 3, 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 infringing goods practicing the invention claimed in using the Plaintiff’s Patent. 4. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Plaintiff is awarded damages from the Defendant in the amount of $24,558.07 for willful infringement of Plaintiff’s Patent products sold through at least the Defendant Internet Store. 5. Any Third Party Providers holding funds for Defendant, including PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”), Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Ant Financial Services Group (“Ant Financial”), and Amazon Pay, shall, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order, permanently restrain and enjoin any accounts connected to Defendant or the Defendant Internet Stores from transferring or disposing of any funds (up to the statutory damages awarded in Paragraph 4 above) or other of Defendant’s assets.All monies (up to the amount of the statutory damages awarded in Paragraph 4 above) currently restrained in Defendant’s financial accounts, including monies held by Third Party Providers such as PayPal, Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay, are hereby released to Plaintiff as partial payment of the above-identified damages, and Third Party Providers, including PayPal, Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay, are ordered to release to Plaintiff the amounts from Defendant’s financial accounts within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of this Order. 7. Until Plaintiff has recovered full payment of monies owed to it by Defendant, Plaintiff shall have the ongoing authority to commence supplemental proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69. 8. In the event that Plaintiff identifies any additional online marketplace accounts or financial accounts owned by Defendant, Plaintiff may send notice of any supplemental proceeding, including a citation to discover assets, to Defendant by e-mail at the e-mail addresses identified in Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of William R. Brees and any e-mail addresses provided for Defendant by third parties. 9. The One Thousand Dollar ($1,000.00) surety bond posted by Plaintiff is hereby released to Plaintiff or its counsel, Bayramoglu Law Offices, LLC. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the surety bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court to Plaintiff or its counsel.
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:26-cv-00392, Illinois Northern District Court

The court's default judgment order constitutes a full merits disposition in Plaintiff's favour, entered on the basis that Defendant failed to appear. The award of $24,558.07 under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for willful infringement, combined with a broad permanent injunction and coordinated third-party enforcement orders, reflects the full scope of relief available in an uncontested default proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois.

PACER case 1:26-cv-00392 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Default judgment

Default judgment: what the court's ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Default judgment: court rules without the defendant

A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond to a complaint. The court accepts the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations as true and determines appropriate relief. Here, Judge Rowland granted Shenzhen Peishi's motion in full, entering judgment on infringement, awarding damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and issuing a permanent injunction — all without any contested litigation.

Defendant failed to appear
Patent holder outcome

Shenzhen Peishi wins injunction and $24,558.07 in damages

Plaintiff secured a permanent injunction restraining Envoylei from all further manufacture, import, sale, or distribution of products practising US12324440B1. The court awarded $24,558.07 for willful infringement. Critically, third-party payment processors and online platforms were ordered to freeze and transfer Envoylei's funds to Plaintiff, providing an enforcement mechanism even without defendant cooperation.

Injunction + damages awarded
Defendant outcome

Envoylei faces permanent ban and asset freeze across major platforms

Envoylei is permanently enjoined from selling infringing automatic smoker products across major online marketplaces including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Wish.com. Its financial accounts held by PayPal, Alipay, Alibaba, and Amazon Pay are subject to restraint and release to Plaintiff. Without appearing to contest the claims, Envoylei has no immediate appellate recourse to challenge the merits — though a motion to vacate default remains procedurally available.

Permanent injunction entered
Commercial implications

Cross-platform enforcement signals strong posture for patent holders

This judgment demonstrates that US patent holders can leverage default proceedings to secure both injunctive relief and coordinated enforcement across major e-commerce and payment platforms simultaneously. For other online sellers of automatic smoker or related barbecue/cooking device products, the judgment signals active enforcement of US12324440B1 and the risk of platform-level asset freezes even absent a contested trial.

Multi-platform enforcement
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:26-cv-00392 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffShenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.Company/Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantEnvoyleiIndividual/Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJoseph Wendell DroterAttorneyCounsel for Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselKatherine Marilyn KuhnAttorneyCounsel for Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselNazly Aileen BayramogluAttorneyCounsel for Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselWilliam BreesAttorneyCounsel for Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmBayramoglu Law Offices LLCLaw FirmRepresenting Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Mary M. RowlandJudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
R&D signals

R&D signals in the automatic smoker and cooking device IP space

Patent activity around automatic smoker and cooking automation technology is growing — here is what US12324440B1 and this enforcement action signal for R&D teams and product developers.

Patent portfolio

Shenzhen Peishi's patent activity in cooking automation

Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd. holds at least US12324440B1 in the automatic smoker space. Analysing their broader US and international filing activity can reveal whether they are building a portfolio around cooking automation, smoke generation, or related control systems — signalling potential future enforcement or licensing activity in adjacent product categories.

Portfolio watch
Technology landscape

Filing trends in automatic smoker and cooking automation patents

The automatic smoker and outdoor cooking device sector has attracted increasing patent activity as smart home and IoT cooking technologies converge. Mapping filing trends around smoke generation, temperature control, and automated fuel feed mechanisms can identify crowded claim spaces and design-around opportunities relevant to US12324440B1.

Filing trend analysis
Competitor IP posture

Envoylei and online marketplace sellers: IP defensive posture

Envoylei's absence from litigation and lack of recorded patent filings suggests a limited IP defensive posture — typical of smaller online marketplace resellers. For competing sellers and manufacturers, this signals that enforcement risk in this product category is largely asymmetric: active patent holders face relatively low resistance from reseller defendants.

Defensive IP gap
White space

Adjacent innovation opportunities near US12324440B1

The automatic smoker patent space may contain white space in areas such as smart connectivity (app-controlled smoking cycles), fuel efficiency mechanisms, smoke flavour-optimisation systems, or multi-chamber designs. R&D teams seeking to enter or compete in this market should map claim boundaries of US12324440B1 to identify non-infringing innovation pathways.

Innovation white space
Related litigation

Similar patent infringement cases: automatic smoker and cooking devices

Explore related patent enforcement actions in the cooking and smoking device sector filed in the Northern District of Illinois and comparable e-commerce enforcement courts.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd. patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern District Court case history, Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.'s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
N.D. Illinois default judgmentsCooking device patent casesBayramoglu Law Offices casesOnline marketplace injunctions
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the automatic smoker and cooking device IP landscape

A swift default judgment with coordinated platform enforcement highlights the growing exposure for online sellers of patented cooking and smoking devices in the US market.

Default judgments enable rapid, platform-wide enforcement against online sellers

Patent holders pursuing online marketplace infringers can achieve injunctions and asset freezes within weeks when defendants fail to appear. Companies sourcing or reselling automatic smoker or cooking device products through Amazon, eBay, or AliExpress should assess FTO exposure before listing — default judgments are difficult and costly to challenge after entry.

US12324440B1 is now actively enforced — adjacent products carry elevated risk

The permanent injunction covers any product 'practising the invention claimed' in US12324440B1, not just identical copies. Sellers and manufacturers of automatic smoker devices, pellet smokers, or related cooking automation products should conduct claim-mapping analysis to determine whether their product configurations fall within the patent's scope.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock detailed enforcement mapping for automatic smoker patent cases in the Northern District of Illinois.
Plaintiff filing patternsSimilar N.D. Illinois actionsPlatform enforcement trends
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Shenzhen v Envoylei — key questions answered

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

Monitor automatic smoker patent enforcement in your market

US12324440B1 is now backed by a court-entered default judgment with active platform enforcement. Run an FTO search and set up portfolio monitoring alerts in PatSnap Eureka to track new filings and enforcement actions in the automatic smoker and cooking device space.

Disclaimer

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.

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.