The parties and the patent
The case is Shenzhenshiriduoyukejiyouxiangongsi v. Marvel Technology (China) Co., Ltd., No. 1:26-cv-12590 (N.D. Ill.), assigned to Judge Jeremy C. Daniel. The plaintiffs are Shenzhenshiriduoyukejiyouxiangongsi, Shenzhenshiyijumaoyiyouxiangongsi, and Shenzhen Shi Zhonglong Gongye Sheji Youxian Gongsi, which the complaint calls RDYMONKEY, ROOMEDAL, and ZLPOWER and describes as Chinese companies based in Shenzhen, China, that sell through online storefronts on Amazon.com and, for RDYMONKEY, Walmart.com. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Marvel is a Chinese company based in Shenzhen, China, that also uses the Pinyin name shenzhenshimaweierxiankongkejiyouxiangongsi.
U.S. Design Patent D1,103,251, titled Mirror Photo Booth, issued November 25, 2025, from an application filed May 19, 2024 that claims priority to a Chinese application filed January 15, 2024. It claims the ornamental design for a mirror photo booth as shown and described. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Marvel owns the patent, and Google Patents lists Marvel Technology China Co Ltd as the current assignee.
What the complaint alleges
The complaint says the plaintiffs each sell two photo booth stands, a Single-Light Stand and a Multi-Light Stand, and that each plaintiff's versions are materially identical in ornamental appearance. It says that on or about August 4 and September 3, 2026, Marvel submitted patent infringement complaints to Walmart asserting the D1,103,251 patent against RDYMONKEY's two stands, and that Walmart removed those listings. It says Marvel has not yet expressly asserted that patent against ROOMEDAL or ZLPOWER, but pleads an actual controversy with them based on Marvel's earlier enforcement against the same designs.
That earlier enforcement, according to the complaint, consisted of Amazon infringement reports under U.S. Patent 12,228,842 in August 2025 and U.S. Patent 12,449,722 in December 2025. The complaint says Amazon removed the listings each time and reinstated them after the plaintiffs submitted attorney opinions, and alleges on information and belief that Amazon invited Marvel to pursue its allegations through Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) and that Marvel declined. It says the plaintiffs' earlier suit seeking declarations of non-infringement of those two patents, Shenzhenshiriduoyukejiyouxiangongsi v. Marvel Technology (China) Co., Ltd., No. 1:26-cv-00125 (N.D. Ill.), is pending; the court's docket shows it was filed January 7, 2026 and is assigned to Judge Edmond E. Chang.
On non-infringement, the complaint argues that an examiner-cited August 2021 publication titled Photo booth Supply iPad Photo Booth already shows a racetrack-shaped upper unit on an upright column, so the shape of the column carries particular weight. It says the claimed column has a rounded-rectangle cross section, with four flat surfaces joined by rounded corners, while the Single-Light Stand has a capsule-shaped column and the Multi-Light Stand has a rectangular column with sharp, roughly 90-degree edges, and it alleges that an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art would not view either stand as substantially the same as the claimed design.
The counts
Count I seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Count II seeks a declaration that the claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 as anticipated by or obvious over Chinese Design Patent CN 308390150 S, U.S. Publication 2019/0384143, and the August 2021 publication, alone or in combination. Count III, brought by RDYMONKEY alone, alleges tortious interference with prospective economic advantage under Illinois law, asserting that Marvel's Walmart complaints were objectively baseless and made in bad faith. The complaint pleads personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) and venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(3) and 1391(c)(3).
Relief requested
The plaintiffs ask for declarations that none of the accused products infringe and that the patent is invalid, judgment for RDYMONKEY on the tortious interference claim with compensatory damages and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, a finding that the case is exceptional with attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, and other proper relief. They do not ask for an injunction. The complaint demands a jury trial. Counsel for the plaintiffs are Edward H. Rice, Marina N. Saito, and Steven M. Lubezny of Rice Technology Law Group of Northbrook, Illinois.
What to watch next
Watch for service on Marvel, Marvel's response and any infringement counterclaim, any effort to relate or coordinate this case with the pending No. 1:26-cv-00125, and whether RDYMONKEY's Walmart listings are restored.