DCT

1:26-cv-00340

Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co Ltd v. Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00340, N.D. Ill., 01/12/26
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that the Defendants, operating as foreign entities, target business activities toward U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, and have offered to sell, sold, and shipped infringing products to an address in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online retailers are selling "automatic smokers" that infringe a patent related to an automatic, internally-housed ignition system for such devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology pertains to culinary devices used to impart smoke flavor to food and beverages, aiming to improve convenience by automating the ignition of the combustion medium (e.g., wood chips).
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2024-09-14 ’440 Patent Priority Date
2025-06-10 ’440 Patent Issue Date
2026-01-12 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440 - *"AUTOMATIC SMOKER"*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,324,440, "AUTOMATIC SMOKER", issued June 10, 2025 (the "’440 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the inconvenience of conventional smokers, which typically require a user to manually place a combustion medium into a chamber and ignite it using an external heat source ('440 Patent, col. 1:18-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an automatic smoker with an integrated electric igniter designed for more efficient operation. The core concept involves an "ignition needle" that extends into the combustion chamber through an "air inlet port." This places the igniter in an "upwind position," allowing air to flow past it and into the chamber, which "promotes the combustion of the combustion medium" and enables the igniter to light it "more easily and quickly" ('440 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:30-39). The structure also includes features to insulate the device's main body from the heat of combustion ('440 Patent, col. 5:7-24).
  • Technical Importance: This design aims to make culinary smoking devices more accessible and user-friendly by automating what is described as a cumbersome manual step ('440 Patent, col. 1:22-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A smoker body, a pipe with a combustion chamber, and a detachable base.
    • The smoker body itself comprising:
      • A casing with a housing and a bottom cover, where the bottom cover has an "air inlet hole."
      • A "thermal insulation cover" arranged on the bottom cover, which is configured to close the combustion chamber and has its own separate "air inlet port."
      • An "automatic igniter" with an "ignition needle" that penetrates the bottom cover and is "accommodated in the air inlet port."
      • A "gap" is formed between the bottom cover and the side wall of the air inlet port.
      • The ignition needle extends into the combustion chamber to ignite the medium.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Accused Products" are identified as "automatic [smokers]" sold by the various Defendants through online stores on the Amazon marketplace (Compl. ¶¶2, 7).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint offers limited technical details about the Accused Products' operation. It alleges that "each infringing product features a circuit board, a fan in the same housing as the circuit board and battery" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of other specific components or their arrangement.
  • The complaint alleges that Defendants are foreign infringers who operate under various seller aliases to sell products directly to U.S. consumers, thereby competing with Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶¶8, 44).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Claim Chart Summary: The complaint makes a general allegation that the Accused Products meet every limitation of Claim 1 but does not include a claim chart or detailed element-by-element analysis (Compl. ¶42). The following table summarizes the allegations based on the complaint's narrative.

’440 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An automatic smoker comprising: a smoker body; a pipe having a combustion chamber...; and a base... The complaint alleges the Accused Products are automatic smokers with these general components. ¶7, ¶41 col. 1:29-35
wherein the smoker body comprises: a casing comprising a housing and a bottom cover...the bottom cover is defined with an air inlet hole; The complaint alleges the Accused Products include every limitation of Claim 1, which would include this structure. ¶42 col. 1:36-40
a thermal insulation cover, arranged on one side of the bottom cover...and the thermal insulation cover is defined with an air inlet port; The complaint alleges the Accused Products include every limitation of Claim 1, which would include this separate cover with its own port. ¶42 col. 1:41-46
an automatic igniter...comprises an ignition needle, the ignition needle penetrates the bottom cover and is accommodated in the air inlet port, a gap is formed between the bottom cover and a side wall of the air inlet port, and the ignition needle extends into the combustion chamber... The complaint alleges the Accused Products contain "a circuit board, a fan in the same housing as the circuit board and battery," which is presented as evidence of an infringing ignition system. ¶24, ¶42 col. 1:47-53
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: A central question will be one of proof. What evidence does the complaint provide that the Accused Products, alleged to contain a "circuit board" and "fan," possess the specific, multi-part mechanical structure required by Claim 1? This includes the presence of both a "bottom cover" with an "air inlet hole" and a distinct "thermal insulation cover" with a separate "air inlet port."
    • Technical Questions: The infringement theory raises a technical question regarding the function of the accused "fan." The court may need to determine if the general air movement from a fan is equivalent to the claimed structure of an "ignition needle" specifically "accommodated in the air inlet port" to create a directed, "upwind" airflow that "promotes" combustion as described in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "ignition needle ... accommodated in the air inlet port"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core structural relationship of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused devices, which allegedly contain a "fan," have an igniter element arranged in this specific spatial relationship with an air port. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links the physical structure to the patent's functional advantage of "upwind" ignition.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language "accommodated in" could be argued to cover any configuration where the igniter is located generally within the boundaries of the port ('440 Patent, col. 4:13).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract and summary consistently describe this arrangement as placing the needle in an "upwind position" to "promote" combustion, suggesting a functional requirement that may narrow the purely structural definition ('440 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:30-35). Figure 7 shows a specific central placement of the needle within the port.

  • The Term: "thermal insulation cover"

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a "thermal insulation cover" that is distinct from the "bottom cover". This term's construction is critical because infringement requires showing the Accused Products have this specific two-component structure, rather than a single integrated base or a simple heat shield.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term could read on any component that provides heat insulation, even if it is not fully detachable or structurally independent.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes and depicts the "thermal insulation cover" (13) and the "bottom cover" (12) as separate components that form a "space" (10) between them for air insulation, suggesting they must be distinct structures ('440 Patent, col. 4:54-58; Fig. 4).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement but does not plead specific facts concerning inducement or contributory infringement, such as instructions encouraging infringing use (Compl. ¶39).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' "knowingly and willfully" manufacturing, importing, and selling the Accused Products (Compl. ¶39). The complaint also alleges the conduct was malicious, oppressive, and/or fraudulent (Compl. ¶50). It does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the ’440 Patent itself.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint's infringement allegations are general. A key question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence to demonstrate that the accused automatic smokers, sold by numerous anonymous entities, actually practice the specific, multi-component structural limitations of Claim 1, particularly the dual-pathway air intake ("air inlet hole" and "air inlet port") and the precise "upwind" placement of the "ignition needle".
  • The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the claim limitation requiring a "thermal insulation cover" separate from the "bottom cover" be construed to read on devices that may use a single, multi-functional base component for both structural support and heat shielding, or does the claim require two physically distinct parts as depicted in the patent's figures?