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.
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 →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.
US12324440B1 — automatic smoker device patent


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.
Official order — verbatim text
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.
Default judgment: what the court's ruling means for both parties
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 appearShenzhen 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 awardedEnvoylei 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 enteredCross-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 enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Envoylei | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Wendell Droter | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Katherine Marilyn Kuhn | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nazly Aileen Bayramoglu | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Brees | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Mary M. Rowland | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
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.
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 watchFiling 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 analysisEnvoylei 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 gapAdjacent 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 spaceSimilar 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.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Automatic smoker-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedShenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.'s broader IP enforcement history
Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd.'s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat 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.
Shenzhen Peishi's enforcement pattern: first case or part of a broader campaign?
The use of Bayramoglu Law Offices — a firm with a known track record in multi-defendant e-commerce patent enforcement actions — suggests this case may be one of several coordinated filings. Monitoring plaintiff's litigation history and co-pending actions in the Northern District of Illinois is advisable for any market participant in this product category.
Payment processor freeze orders: a powerful but underappreciated enforcement tool
The court's order directing PayPal, Alipay, Alibaba, and Amazon Pay to freeze and transfer funds within 7–14 days represents a highly effective, low-friction enforcement mechanism against overseas sellers. IP professionals advising clients on e-commerce exposure should factor this risk into their freedom-to-operate and commercial strategy analyses.
Shenzhen v Envoylei — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in favour of Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd. on April 3, 2026. The court awarded $24,558.07 in damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for willful infringement of US12324440B1 and issued a permanent injunction against Envoylei. Defendant failed to appear or respond.
US12324440B1 (application number US18/900993) is a US patent held by Shenzhen Peishi covering an automatic smoker device. It was asserted against Envoylei for selling products through online marketplaces that allegedly practised the invention claimed in the patent without authorisation. The specific claims and technical scope are not further detailed in the available case record.
The court permanently enjoined Envoylei from manufacturing, importing, distributing, or selling any product practising the invention claimed in US12324440B1 without Plaintiff's authorisation. Third-party platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Wish.com, and Alibaba were ordered to disable Envoylei's accounts, and payment processors including PayPal and Alipay were ordered to freeze and transfer Defendant's funds to Plaintiff.
A defendant against whom a default judgment has been entered may file a motion to vacate the default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) or 60(b), typically arguing lack of notice, excusable neglect, or a meritorious defence. However, the available record does not disclose any such motion. The specific terms of any challenge would depend on Envoylei's ability to demonstrate grounds for relief.
The court ordered PayPal, Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay to freeze funds in Envoylei's accounts up to the $24,558.07 damages award and to release those funds to Plaintiff within 14 days. This mechanism enables enforcement against overseas online sellers even without direct defendant cooperation, and is increasingly common in e-commerce patent default judgment proceedings.
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.
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.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.