Shenzhen Huajing International Trade Co Ltd v. The Grease Box LLC

This lawsuit is the second chapter in a dispute between a U.S.-based grill accessory maker and a Chinese trading company, notable for its procedural maneuvering. The defendant, The Grease Box LLC, is an American operating company that developed and sells a patented safety-oriented grease containment system for outdoor pellet grills. The company owns U.S. Patent No. 11,812,895, which covers a safety enclosure for a grease bucket designed to prevent spills, create a thermal buffer, and reduce fire risk. The plaintiff, Shenzhen Huajing International Trade Co., Ltd., is a China-based entity that sells products in the U.S., including the accused grease containment systems identified in the complaint by four Amazon ASINs. While public information suggests the existence of multiple Shenzhen-based companies named "Huajing" involved in different industries, the plaintiff in this matter is a seller of the allegedly infringing consumer products.

The case's procedural posture is its most significant feature. The current action is a request for a declaratory judgment (DJ) of non-infringement and/or invalidity, filed by Shenzhen Huajing in the District of Arizona and assigned to Judge Susan M. Brnovich. This filing on April 19, 2026, followed the dismissal of a prior lawsuit between the same parties over the same patent. In the first action (Case 2:25-cv-01300), The Grease Box had sued Shenzhen Huajing for patent infringement in the Western District of Washington. However, on February 23, 2026, that court dismissed the case for improper venue, giving Shenzhen Huajing a procedural victory without ruling on the merits of the infringement claim.

This new DJ action represents a strategic reversal of roles and a "race to the courthouse." By filing first in Arizona after the Washington dismissal, Shenzhen Huajing is attempting to preemptively select the legal venue for the next stage of the dispute, a common tactic for accused infringers. The choice of Arizona is likely deliberate, as The Grease Box appears to be an Arizona-based company, making it a proper venue and harder for the patent owner to challenge. The case now proceeds with the accused infringer as the plaintiff, forcing the patentee, The Grease Box, to defend its patent's validity and prove infringement in a forum chosen by its adversary.

Litigation Timeline and Key Developments

As of May 4, 2026, the patent litigation between Shenzhen Huajing International Trade Co Ltd ("Shenzhen Huajing") and The Grease Box LLC is in its infancy. The case's most notable feature is its procedural history, which involves a prior dismissal for improper venue and a subsequent refiling in a new district.

Prior Litigation in the Western District of Washington (2025-2026)

Before the current action, Shenzhen Huajing filed a similar declaratory judgment lawsuit against The Grease Box in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Case No. 2:25-cv-01300) on July 10, 2025. The defendant, The Grease Box, is an Arizona-based LLC.

On September 15, 2025, The Grease Box filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that venue was improper in the Western District of Washington. After briefing from both parties, Chief Judge Jamal N. Whitehead granted the motion on February 23, 2026. The court found that The Grease Box, an Arizona company with its members and employees residing outside of Washington, lacked the necessary connections to the state for venue to be appropriate there. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, permitting Shenzhen Huajing to refile the lawsuit in a proper venue.

Current Litigation in the District of Arizona (2026-Present)

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2026-04-19)
Taking advantage of the "without prejudice" dismissal, Shenzhen Huajing refiled the declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on April 19, 2026 (Case No. 2:26-cv-02717). This venue is proper as it is the home state of the defendant, The Grease Box LLC. The case has been assigned to Judge Susan M. Brnovich.

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that Shenzhen Huajing's grease containment systems (identified by Amazon Standard Identification Numbers B0DJFNG1DP, B0DNSP3TFJ, B0DSVQ4SND, and B0DJBB85FK) do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,812,895, owned by The Grease Box. The filing suggests the action was prompted by a "bad faith Amazon patent takedown" initiated by The Grease Box.

Current Status and Next Steps
The case is in its earliest stage. As of May 4, 2026, docket reports show the complaint has been filed and summons has been issued for The Grease Box. The defendant's answer, along with any potential counterclaims for patent infringement, has not yet been filed. The deadline for a defendant to respond to a complaint is typically 21 days after service of the summons, or longer if service is waived. No substantive motions have been filed in the Arizona action.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings
A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records indicates that no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings have been filed challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,812,895. Therefore, there are currently no parallel PTAB proceedings that would impact the district court litigation.

The case is presently open and awaiting the defendant's response to the complaint.

As of May 4, 2026, the public docket for Shenzhen Huajing International Trade Co Ltd v. The Grease Box LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02717 in the District of Arizona, is in its very early stages. The complaint was filed on April 19, 2026, and counsel for the plaintiff has made an appearance.

Based on the initial filings, the counsel of record for the plaintiff, Shenzhen Huajing International Trade Co Ltd, is as follows:

Plaintiff's Counsel (Shenzhen Huajing)

• Name: Ryan J. C. G. Casamiquela

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: Casamiquela, a Professional Law Corporation (Newport Beach, CA)

• Notable Experience: Mr. Casamiquela has represented various clients, including many international sellers, in intellectual property disputes involving patent and trademark infringement, particularly in the e-commerce space and matters arising from Amazon Brand Registry complaints.

• Name: Carson T. H. Z. Bickerstaff

• Role: Local Counsel

• Firm: Bickerstaff Law (Phoenix, AZ)

• Notable Experience: Mr. Bickerstaff is an Arizona-based attorney whose firm website indicates a focus on intellectual property and business litigation within the state, making him a logical choice for local counsel.

No in-house counsel for Shenzhen Huajing has appeared on the docket. The representation reflects a common strategy for international e-commerce sellers: hiring a primary counsel with expertise in e-commerce IP disputes and associating with a local attorney to meet the court's requirements and navigate local practice.

As of May 4, 2026, the defendant, The Grease Box LLC, has not yet filed a notice of appearance in the case Shenzhen Huajing International Trade Co Ltd v. The Grease Box LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02717, in the District of Arizona.

The complaint was filed on April 19, 2026. A defendant typically has 21 days to respond after service of the summons and complaint. Given this timeline, it is not unusual that counsel for the defendant has not yet formally appeared on the public docket.

Therefore, there is currently no counsel of record to report for the defendant, The Grease Box LLC. Information will be updated once an appearance is entered.