IP Law Daily, PATENT—S.D.N.Y.: Wall-climbing toy patent owner secures preliminary injunction against online sellers, (Jan 29, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The court found likely infringement, irreparable harm from direct competition, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored enforcement of patent rights.

A federal district court in New York granted a motion for preliminary injunction filed by Spin Master, Ltd., concluding that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its patent infringement claims against multiple online sellers operating under the name Aomore-US and related defendants. The court held that the accused wall-climbing toy vehicles likely infringed Spin Master’s patent, that the patent was likely valid, and that Spin Master would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief due to price erosion, loss of market share, and diminished patent value. The court further found that the balance of equities and the public interest weighed in favor of granting injunctive relief (Spin Master, Ltd. v. Aomore-US, No. 1:23-cv-07099-DEH (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Spin Master, Ltd., is a global toy and entertainment company that develops, manufactures, and markets children’s toys and games worldwide. Spin Master is widely known for its Zero Gravity® line of remote-controlled toy vehicles, which are designed to drive on walls and ceilings. Spin Master is the exclusive licensee of the patent asserted in this case and has actively enforced its intellectual property rights in prior litigation. The defendants are multiple third-party sellers, primarily based in China, who allegedly sell infringing wall-climbing toy vehicles through U.S. e-commerce platforms, including Amazon.com and Walmart.com.

The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 7,753,755 (the ’755 patent), of which Spin Master is the exclusive licensee with the right to sue in its own name. The ’755 patent covers battery-powered, remotely controlled toy vehicles capable of operating on horizontal, vertical, and ceiling-like surfaces. The patented technology relies on a fan-driven airflow through a carefully shaped underbody venturi duct that creates downforce via differential air pressure, allowing the toy vehicle to adhere to walls and ceilings without relying on suction or a vacuum seal.

Spin Master initiated the action in August 2023, alleging that the defendants’ toy vehicles infringed multiple patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,675,897 (the ’897 patent) and the ’755 patent. Spin Master initially sought emergency relief in the form of a temporary restraining order, which the court denied, while permitting further briefing on a preliminary injunction. A renewed motion for preliminary injunction was later denied without prejudice due to improper service on the defendants.

After service was properly effectuated, Spin Master renewed its request for preliminary injunctive relief. Before the court ruled, the ’897 patent expired. Spin Master then supplemented its motion to rely solely on the ’755 patent, asserting that the accused products continued to infringe that patent and were flooding the U.S. market at significantly lower prices. Spin Master argued that the ongoing infringement forced it to reduce prices, redesign products, and absorb losses in market share, goodwill, and patent value.

Likelihood of success on the merits. Applying the preliminary injunction framework articulated in Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010), the court first considered whether Spin Master was likely to succeed on the merits. The court concluded that Spin Master had made a sufficient showing of likely infringement. After construing the disputed claim terms, including “stream of air,” “fan duct,” and “underbody venturi duct,” the court determined that the accused products likely embodied each limitation of Claims 1, 6, and 21 of the ’755 patent.

The court rejected the defendants’ contention that their products relied on suction rather than free-flowing air. Relying on the patent’s claims, specification, and prosecution history, the court found that the accused products used fan-driven airflow through a venturi-shaped underbody passage to generate downforce, consistent with the claimed invention. The court emphasized that its infringement determination was preliminary and not binding at later stages of the litigation.

Validity. The court also concluded that the defendants failed to raise a substantial question as to the validity of the ’755 patent. Although the defendants relied on a prior Chinese utility model reference, the court found that the cited reference did not disclose a venturi duct with the claimed structure and airflow characteristics. The court further noted that the commercial success of Spin Master’s Zero Gravity® toys weighed in favor of non-obviousness. Given the statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282, the court held that Spin Master was likely to withstand the defendants’ invalidity challenge.

Irreparable harm. Turning to irreparable harm, the court found that Spin Master had demonstrated harm that could not be adequately remedied by monetary damages. The accused products directly competed with Spin Master’s wall-climbing toys and were sold at substantially lower prices, leading to price erosion, loss of market share, and diminished brand distinction. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that Spin Master’s delay in seeking relief undermined its claim of irreparable harm, noting that Spin Master had pursued alternative enforcement avenues and engaged in settlement discussions during the relevant period.

Balance of equities and public interest. The court determined that the balance of equities favored Spin Master. Absent an injunction, Spin Master would continue to suffer competitive harm from infringing products, while the defendants had no legitimate interest in continuing allegedly infringing conduct. The court further held that the public interest supported enforcement of valid patent rights, particularly where the patentee actively practices the patented invention, and the injunction would promote innovation and fair competition.

Conclusion. Concluding that Spin Master had shown a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored relief, the court granted Spin Master’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The injunction bars the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, importing, or selling the accused wall-climbing toy vehicles pending further proceedings in the case.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-07099-DEH.

Judge: Ho, D.

Attorneys: Andrew D. Skale (Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC) for Spin Master, Ltd. Aomore-US, pro se.

Companies: Spin Master, Ltd.

Cases: Patent NewYorkNews GCNNews