Book a demo

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

Try now
Shenzhen Peishi v. Kaymer & Yelusonw — Automatic Smoker Patent | PatSnap
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
239days
Case resolved in 239 days — from filing to default judgment entry
Patents asserted
1
US12324440B1 — Automatic Smoker device, patented cooking appliance technology
Outcome
Default Judgment
Court entered default judgment against Kaymer and Yelusonw-Direct for willful patent infringement
Cost ruling
$335,166.48
Total damages awarded: $265,173.48 (Kaymer) + $69,993.00 (Yelusonw-Direct) under 35 U.S.C. § 284
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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 →
Case at a glance
CourtIllinois Northern District Court
JudgeN/A
FiledSeptember 23, 2025
ClosedMay 20, 2026
Duration239 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 239 days

Case resolved in 239 days — from filing to default judgment entry

Case timeline: Complaint filed SEP 23 2025 — 239 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Xyz Corporation v The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A Hereto from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. SEP 23 2025 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings MAY 20 2026 Default Judgment 239 DAYS TOTAL
Patent at issue

US12324440B1 — Automatic Smoker device patent

Publication No.US12324440B1
Application No.US18/900993
Patent details
ProductAutomatic smoker cooking appliance
Cited in actionSeptember 23, 2025
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 U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440?

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.

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

This action having been commenced by Plaintiff Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co. Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) against the remaining defendants identified in Schedule A, Defendant No. 1 Kaymer and Defendant No. 2 Yelusonw-Direct and using the Defendant Domain Names and Online Marketplace Accounts identified in Schedule A (collectively, the “Defendant Internet Stores”), and Plaintiff having moved for entry of Default and Default Judgment against the defendants identified in Schedule A attached hereto which have not yet been dismissed from this case (collectively, “Defaulting Defendants”); This Court having entered a preliminary injunction; Plaintiff having properly completed service of process on Defaulting Defendants, the combination of providing notice via electronic publication and e-mail, along with any notice that Defaulting Defendants received from the online platform Amazon and payment processors, being notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise Defaulting Defendants of the pendency of the action and affording them the opportunity to answer and present their objections; and Case: 1:25-cv-11544 Document #: 128 Filed: 05/20/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1145 2 Neither of the Defaulting Defendants have obtained substitute counsel and are therefore in default, so that the allegations of the Complaint are uncontroverted and are deemed admitted; This Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over Defaulting Defendants because Defaulting Defendants directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Plaintiff has provided a basis to conclude that Defaulting Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more seller aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, and have sold products using infringing and counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s federally registered patent (the “Plaintiff Patent”) to residents of Illinois. In this case, Plaintiff has presented screenshot evidence that each Defendant e-commerce store is reaching out to do business with Illinois residents by operating one or more commercial, interactive internet stores through which Illinois residents can and do purchase products that infringe on Plaintiff’s Patent, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440 entitled Automatic Smoker (“Plaintiff’s Patent”). See Docket Nos. 1 through 2, which includes evidence of infringing products purchased by Plaintiff and shipped to Illinois along with links to the listings on the online platform from which they were ordered, confirming that each Defendant e-commerce store does stand ready, willing and able to ship its infringing goods to customers in Illinois practicing the invention claimed in Plaintiff’s Patent. This Court further finds that Defaulting Defendants are liable for willful patent infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271) and unjust enrichment under Illinois State Common Law. Accordingly, this Court orders that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED as follows, that remaining Defaulting Defendants are deemed in default, and that this Default Judgment is entered against Defaulting Defendants. Case: 1:25-cv-11544 Document #: 128 Filed: 05/20/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:1146 3 This Court further orders that: 1. Defaulting Defendants, their 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: a. 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 Defaulting Defendants’ products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff; and e. 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. Case: 1:25-cv-11544 Document #: 128 Filed: 05/20/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:1147 4 2. Defaulting Defendants and any third party with actual notice of this Order who is providing services for any of the Defaulting Defendants, or in connection with any of the Defaulting Defendants’ Online Marketplaces, 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 Defaulting Defendants 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 product practicing the invention claimed in Plaintiff’s Patentor 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 Plaintiff’s Patent. 3. Upon Plaintiff’s request, those with notice of this Order, including the Third-Party Providers as defined in Paragraph 2, shall within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of such notice, disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with Defaulting Defendants in connection with the sale of infringing goods practicing the invention claimed in using Plaintiff’s Patent. 4. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Plaintiff is awarded damages from the Defaulting Defendants in the amount shown for each Defendant in the table below for willful infringement of Plaintiff’s Patent on products sold through at least the Defendant Internet Stores. Case: 1:25-cv-11544 Document #: 128 Filed: 05/20/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:1148 5 Def. No. Store Alias Total Damages Awarded 1 Kaymer $265,173.48 2 Yelusonw-Direct $69,993.00 5. Any Third Party Providers holding funds for Defaulting Defendants, 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 Defaulting Defendants 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 Defaulting Defendants’ assets. 6. All monies (up to the amount of the statutory damages awarded in Paragraph 4 above) currently restrained in Defaulting Defendants’ 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 Default
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:25-cv-11544, Illinois Northern District Court

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.

PACER case 1:25-cv-11544 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Default judgment

Default judgment: what the ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

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 default
Patent holder outcome

Shenzhen 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 damages
Defendant outcome

Defendants 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 lost
Commercial implications

Platform-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 model
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:25-cv-11544 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffXyz CorporationCompany/Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A HeretoIndividual/Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselEmily Marie HeimAttorneyCounsel for Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselGokalp BayramogluAttorneyCounsel for Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJoseph Wendell DroterAttorneyCounsel for Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselNihat Deniz BayramogluAttorneyCounsel for Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselWilliam BreesAttorneyCounsel for Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmBayramoglu Law Offices LLCLaw FirmRepresenting Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmVanguard Crest P.C.Law FirmRepresenting Xyz CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
R&D signals

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.

Patent portfolio

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 watch
Technology landscape

Patent 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 rising
Competitive IP posture

E-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 risk
White space opportunity

Adjacent 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 opportunities
Related litigation

Similar 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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Xyz Corporation patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern District Court case history, Xyz Corporation's full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Comparable damages rangesSchedule A default ratesAmazon enforcement casesConsumer appliance patents
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What 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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper analysis on consumer appliance patent enforcement trends and Schedule A default judgment strategy in the Northern District of Illinois.
Enforcement risk scoringComparable damages awardsPortfolio monitoring signals
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Xyz v Individuals — 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 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.

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.