Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd. v. Envoylei
Infringement action filed 13 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and closed 3 Apr 2026, with US12324440B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: default judgment.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US12324440B1
- Application no.
- US18/900993
- Case no.
- 1:26-cv-00392
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Ill.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Illinois
- Chief judge
- Mary M. Rowland
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 13 Jan 2026 – 3 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 80 days
- Basis of termination
- Default Judgment
- Products & marks
- Automatic smoker
- 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
Automatic smoker
An automatic smoker, which ignites a combustion medium placed in a combustion chamber by means of an automatic igniter. An ignition needle of the automatic igniter is positioned inside an air inlet port and extends into the combustion chamber, placing the ignition needle at an upwind position. When the ignition needle performs the ignition operation, air enters the combustion chamber through the air inlet hole, promoting the combustion of the combustion medium, thereby enabling the automatic igniter to ignite the combustion medium within the combustion chamber more easily and quickly.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 10 Jun 2025
- Earliest priority
- 14 Sep 2024
- Est. expiry
- 30 Sep 2044
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ZHENG, SHAOYAN
- Classification
- A23B4/052F23Q3/00
- Prosecution counsel
- ipPivot IP Agency
- Examiner
- CHOU, JIMMY
Parties of record
Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.
- Core tech
- A23B4/052F23Q3/00
- Counsel
- Joseph Wendell Droter · Katherine Marilyn Kuhn · Nazly Aileen Bayramoglu · William Brees
- Firm
- Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC
Envoylei
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“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.”
Case 1:26-cv-00392 · N.D. Ill. · closed 3 April 2026
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 1:26-cv-00392?
1:26-cv-00392 is a patent infringement action brought by Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd. against Envoylei, filed on 13 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case closed on 3 April 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 1:26-cv-00392?
US12324440B1 (“Automatic smoker”), assigned to SHENZHEN PEISHI ADVERTISING MEDIA CO., LTD., currently active. The record also lists Automatic smoker.
How was case 1:26-cv-00392 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is default judgment. The termination text reads: “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
What does default judgment mean?
A default judgment is entered when a defendant does not appear or does not defend the action.
How long did case 1:26-cv-00392 take?
80 calendar days, from filing on 13 Jan 2026 to closure on 3 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:26-cv-00392?
Chief Judge Mary M. Rowland presided. Joseph Wendell Droter, Katherine Marilyn Kuhn, Nazly Aileen Bayramoglu and William Brees are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:26-cv-00392 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.