Shenzhen Peishi v. Kaymer & Yelusonw: Default Judgment in Automatic Smoker Patent Case
Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against Schedule A e-commerce defendants for infringing U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440, an automatic smoker device. The court entered a default judgment totalling $335,166.48 against two defaulting defendants selling counterfeits on Amazon and other online marketplaces.
Default judgment secured against counterfeit automatic smoker sellers
Plaintiff Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd. filed this action on 23 September 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440, entitled 'Automatic Smoker.' The defendants — identified as Kaymer (Defendant No. 1) and Yelusonw-Direct (Defendant No. 2) — operated e-commerce storefronts, including accounts on Amazon, selling products alleged to practice the invention claimed in Plaintiff's patent without authorisation.
Neither defendant obtained substitute counsel or responded to the proceedings, placing them in default. On 20 May 2026, the court granted Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, finding willful patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and unjust enrichment under Illinois state common law. The court awarded $265,173.48 against Kaymer and $69,993.00 against Yelusonw-Direct under 35 U.S.C. § 284, along with a permanent injunction barring manufacturing, importing, offering for sale, or selling any product practicing the patented invention.
The case resolved in 239 days through default proceedings, consistent with the pace of Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions in this district. The court also ordered third-party platforms and payment processors — including Amazon Pay, PayPal, Alipay, and Alibaba — to freeze and release restrained funds to Plaintiff as partial satisfaction of the damages award. The specific amounts actually recovered from frozen accounts are not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Default Judgment in 239 days
Case resolved in 239 days — from filing to default judgment entry
US12324440B1 — Automatic Smoker device patent


Any company or individual selling, importing, or manufacturing automatic smoker devices — particularly through Amazon, AliExpress, or other online marketplaces — should consider a freedom-to-operate assessment against U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440. The default judgment in this case confirms that U.S. courts will act against both domestic and international sellers, and that marketplace platforms will enforce court orders directly against seller accounts.
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order records findings of willful patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and unjust enrichment under Illinois common law. Because the defendants failed to appear, all allegations were deemed admitted. The damages figures of $265,173.48 and $69,993.00 were awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 284 as found by the court on the uncontested record. The specific basis for the damages calculations is not further detailed in the available order text.
Default judgment: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment entered for failure to defend
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond, causing the allegations of the complaint to be deemed admitted. Here, neither Kaymer nor Yelusonw-Direct obtained counsel or contested the claims. The court found personal jurisdiction satisfied, service properly completed, and willful infringement established on the uncontroverted record. The judgment is binding and enforceable against the defaulting defendants.
Willful infringement admitted by defaultShenzhen Peishi secures $335K+ and permanent injunction
Plaintiff obtained a permanent injunction barring the defendants from manufacturing, importing, selling, or distributing any product practicing U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440 without authorisation. Total damages of $335,166.48 were awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Third-party providers including Amazon Pay, PayPal, and Alibaba were ordered to freeze and release restrained funds to Plaintiff as partial satisfaction of the damages award.
Permanent injunction + $335K damagesDefendants face judgment, account freezes, and platform removal
Kaymer and Yelusonw-Direct face enforceable money judgments of $265,173.48 and $69,993.00 respectively. Their online marketplace accounts and associated financial accounts have been restrained. Online platforms and payment processors received direct orders to disable the defendants' storefronts and release frozen funds to Plaintiff. The defendants' failure to appear means no defences were raised or preserved.
Accounts frozen; marketplace access lostPlatform-level enforcement amplifies patent holder reach
This case illustrates how patent holders can leverage court orders to compel marketplace platforms — including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Wish.com — and payment processors to act directly against infringing sellers. The Schedule A filing strategy and rapid default judgment pathway create significant exposure for e-commerce sellers offering products that practice a patented invention, even where sellers are located outside the United States.
Schedule A enforcement modelFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Xyz Corporation | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A Hereto | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Emily Marie Heim | Attorney | Counsel for Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gokalp Bayramoglu | Attorney | Counsel for Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Wendell Droter | Attorney | Counsel for Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nihat Deniz Bayramoglu | Attorney | Counsel for Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Brees | Attorney | Counsel for Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC | Law Firm | Representing Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Vanguard Crest P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the automatic smoker and cooking appliance space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence for the automatic smoker category, surfaced from the Shenzhen Peishi enforcement action and the broader cooking appliance IP landscape.
Shenzhen Peishi's IP position in automatic cooking devices
Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd. holds U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440 covering an automatic smoker. Their willingness to pursue Schedule A enforcement suggests an active IP protection strategy. Monitoring their broader patent filing activity in automated cooking appliance technology may reveal further assertion risk for sellers in this category.
Plaintiff portfolio watchPatent filing trends in automatic and electric smoker devices
The automatic smoker and electric BBQ appliance category is an active area of product innovation and IP filing. Understanding the density of patent filings around automatic smoker mechanisms — including temperature control, smoke generation, and automation features — is essential for product teams entering or competing in this market segment.
Filing density risingE-commerce defendants' IP exposure in cooking appliance categories
Sellers such as Kaymer and Yelusonw-Direct operated without apparent patent clearance in the automatic smoker category. This signals a broader gap in IP due diligence among third-party marketplace sellers importing cooking appliances from Chinese manufacturers. Monitoring competitor seller activity and patent clearance posture in this space may surface further enforcement risk.
Marketplace seller IP riskAdjacent innovation opportunities near the automatic smoker patent
U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440 claims specific features of an automatic smoker. Adjacent technology areas — such as smart connectivity, pellet feed mechanisms, or multi-mode smoking and grilling combinations — may represent white-space opportunities for R&D teams seeking to develop differentiated products that operate outside the scope of the asserted claims.
Design-around opportunitiesSimilar Schedule A patent cases in the Northern District of Illinois
Explore comparable Schedule A patent enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois involving consumer appliance and e-commerce counterfeiting claims.
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.
DecidedXyz Corporation's broader IP enforcement history
Xyz Corporation's full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the consumer appliance IP landscape
Schedule A patent enforcement against e-commerce counterfeiters is intensifying — this case shows how swiftly default judgments and platform freezes can be obtained.
Schedule A actions deliver fast, enforceable results against online counterfeiters
The Northern District of Illinois has become a preferred venue for Schedule A patent enforcement. Shenzhen Peishi obtained a default judgment with platform-level account freezes in under eight months. Companies holding patents covering physical consumer products sold on Amazon should evaluate whether this enforcement model fits their IP strategy.
Third-party platform orders create immediate commercial disruption for defendants
The court's orders directed at Amazon, PayPal, Alibaba, and other processors — not just the named defendants — demonstrate that patent holders can immobilise infringing e-commerce operations at the infrastructure level. This is a significant deterrent and enforcement multiplier that operates independently of whether the seller responds to litigation.
Willful infringement finding raises the damages ceiling for follow-on actions
A court finding of willfulness under 35 U.S.C. § 284 can support enhanced damages of up to three times the award. Companies monitoring the automatic smoker and connected cooking appliance space should assess whether their products or supply chains intersect with U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440 before exposure escalates.
Shenzhen Peishi's enforcement posture suggests active portfolio-level monitoring
Bringing a Schedule A action requires investment in marketplace surveillance, test purchases, and multi-jurisdiction enforcement infrastructure. This filing pattern suggests Plaintiff maintains an organised IP enforcement programme — sellers in adjacent cooking appliance categories on Amazon and Alibaba should treat this as a forward-looking risk signal.
Xyz v Individuals — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment against defendants Kaymer and Yelusonw-Direct on 20 May 2026. The court found willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440 (Automatic Smoker) and awarded total damages of $335,166.48 — $265,173.48 against Kaymer and $69,993.00 against Yelusonw-Direct — along with a permanent injunction.
U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440, entitled 'Automatic Smoker,' is the patent asserted by Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd. The patent covers an automatic smoker cooking appliance. The court found that products sold by the defendants through e-commerce stores practiced the invention claimed in this patent without authorisation.
The court found personal jurisdiction because the defendants directly targeted U.S. consumers, including Illinois residents, by operating e-commerce storefronts that offered shipping to Illinois. Plaintiff provided screenshot evidence of test purchases shipped to Illinois, confirming the defendants were ready to ship infringing goods to Illinois customers.
The court granted a permanent injunction barring the defendants from manufacturing, importing, selling, or distributing products practicing U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440. Damages of $335,166.48 were awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Third-party providers including Amazon Pay, PayPal, Alibaba, Alipay, and Ant Financial were ordered to freeze and release restrained funds to Plaintiff as partial satisfaction of the judgment.
A Schedule A case is a patent or trademark enforcement action filed against multiple unnamed e-commerce defendants identified in a schedule attached to the complaint, commonly used against online counterfeiters. The Northern District of Illinois is a frequently used venue for this enforcement model due to its established case law and procedural familiarity with Schedule A actions targeting marketplace sellers.
Monitor automatic smoker patent risk before it reaches your marketplace
Use PatSnap Eureka to run FTO searches against U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440 and track enforcement activity in the automatic smoker and cooking appliance category. Stay ahead of Schedule A enforcement actions before they impact your operations.
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.