DCT
8:23-cv-00522
Get Lit LLC v. Golden General LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Get Lit, LLC (Kansas)
- Defendant: Golden General LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP
- Case Identification: 8:23-cv-00522, C.D. Cal., 07/13/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant residing, doing business, and targeting sales to consumers in California through e-commerce stores on Amazon.com and its own websites.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Wi-Fi connected "touch lamps" infringe a patent related to communicative lighting systems that allow networked lamps to react to user input on other lamps within an associated group.
- Technical Context: The technology enables ambient, non-verbal communication over long distances by linking physical lighting devices over a network, such that an interaction with one device causes a visible change in a paired device.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff put Defendant on notice of infringement of the patent-in-suit through Amazon on November 23, 2022, and again through its attorneys, including a claim chart, on January 24, 2023. The continuation of sales after these dates is the basis for the willfulness allegation. The filing is a First Amended Complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-05-02 | U.S. Patent No. 10,588,202 Priority Date |
| 2020-03-10 | U.S. Patent No. 10,588,202 Issue Date |
| 2021-10-27 | Defendant registers "ihugfriendshiplamps.com" domain |
| 2021-12-01 | Plaintiff's product featured on CBS Sunday Morning (approximate date) |
| 2022-11-09 | Defendant registers "friendshiplampsblog.com" domain |
| 2022-11-16 | Defendant registers "bestfriendshiplamps.com" and "longdistancefriendshiplamp.com" domains |
| 2022-11-23 | Plaintiff provides notice of patent infringement to Defendant via Amazon |
| 2023-01-24 | Plaintiff's counsel provides notice of patent infringement with claim chart to Defendant |
| 2023-07-13 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,588,202 - "Communicative Lighting Systems" (Issued Mar. 10, 2020)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent recognizes that light has long been used for communication, but its utility is typically limited by the need for the recipient to be within direct viewing distance of the light source (’202 Patent, col. 2:32-37).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system of multiple, network-connected light sources that are associated with each other via a central server. An input at one light source (e.g., a touch) causes it to send a message to the server, which in turn sends a command to an associated light source, potentially located a great distance away, to alter its light output (e.g., change color, dim, or blink) ('202 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-14). This architecture uses network connectivity to enable communication through light across distances not otherwise possible ('202 Patent, col. 2:42-46).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for using the internet to link ambient physical devices, enabling a form of non-verbal, emotional communication between individuals separated by large geographic distances ('202 Patent, col. 11:26-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 ('Compl. ¶37).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A first light source with an input mechanism, a light output mechanism, and a permanently assigned first identifier, connected to a first network.
- A second light source with an input mechanism, a light output mechanism, and a permanently assigned second identifier, connected to a second network.
- A server accessible to both light sources that receives messages to associate the two light sources.
- The system is configured such that an input at one light source alters the light output of the other, and vice-versa.
- Computer instructions cause the light sources to contact the server to register their network addresses.
- An input at the first light source causes a message to be transmitted from the first source to the server, and then from the server to the second source to alter its operation.
- An input at the second light source causes a message to be transmitted from the second source to the server, and then from the server to the first source to alter its operation.
- The complaint's prayer for relief seeks a judgment of infringement of "one or more claims," which may suggest an intent to assert dependent claims later in the litigation (Compl. p. 28, ¶A).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Accused Products are Wi-Fi connected "touch lamps" sold by Defendant under the "iHug" brand (Compl. ¶32).
Functionality and Market Context
- The products are described as "Customizable Long Distance Touch Lamp WiFi Enabled, with Programmable Colors" (Compl. ¶36). Their core alleged function is that when a user taps one lamp, other lamps in the same user-defined group will light up, enabling communication between geographically separated users (Compl. ¶36). The complaint includes a screenshot from the website "ihugfriendshiplamps.com" showing the Accused Products offered for sale (Compl. ¶88; Ex. 12). The products are allegedly sold through Defendant's "Golden General" storefront on Amazon and multiple other websites (Compl. ¶¶32-33).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
While the complaint references a detailed claim chart in Exhibit 3, the exhibit itself was not filed with the public version of the complaint. The infringement allegations are synthesized below from the complaint's narrative descriptions.
’202 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first light source connected to a first network, the first light source having at least one input mechanism, at least one light output mechanism... | The accused "iHug" lamp is a "Touch Lamp" (input) with "Programmable Colors" (output) that is "WiFi Enabled" (networked). | ¶¶32, 36 | col. 4:17-19 |
| ...and a permanently assigned first identifier retained in a non-transitory computer-readable memory within the first light source... | The complaint alleges this element is met, which implies each lamp has a unique, non-volatile identifier allowing it to be part of a "group." | ¶¶37, 97 | col. 4:19-22 |
| a second light source connected to a second network... [with same features] | A second accused "iHug" lamp with identical alleged functionality. | ¶¶36, 37 | col. 4:23-27 |
| a server connected to at least one network accessible to both the first light source...and the second light source... | The long-distance, Wi-Fi enabled nature of the system implies a server-based architecture for relaying communications. | ¶¶36, 105 | col. 5:1-4 |
| ...the server receiving messages from...the first light source and the second light source to associate the first light source and the second light source with one another... | The accused system allows users to form a "group" of lamps, which necessitates the lamps being associated on a server. | ¶36 | col. 5:4-6 |
| ...such that when an input is made using the at least one input mechanism at the first light source the operation of the...second light source alters... | The complaint alleges, "[w]hen you tap your friendahip [sic] lamps, then all the other lamps on your group will light up." | ¶36 | col. 5:6-10 |
| ...wherein the computer readable instructions...cause the computer processors...to contact the server to register a network address... | This standard function of an IoT device is alleged to be part of the accused system's operation required to enable network communication. | ¶¶37, 97 | col. 5:9-13 |
| ...wherein the receipt of an input at the input mechanism of the first light source causes a message to be transmitted from the first light source to the server and then from the server to the second light source to alter the operation... | This describes the underlying technical process for the core alleged functionality of one lamp controlling another via the network. | ¶¶36, 105 | col. 5:13-18 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the interpretation of "permanently assigned... identifier." The dispute could focus on whether the identifier used by the accused lamps (e.g., a MAC address, a firmware-based ID) qualifies as "permanently assigned" as understood in the patent, especially if it can be reconfigured or overwritten.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges a specific data flow: lamp to server to lamp. A key evidentiary question will be what proof demonstrates that the accused "iHug" system architecture performs this specific message-relaying function, as opposed to an alternative network communication method.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "permanently assigned... identifier"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement of Claim 1 requires each light source to possess such an identifier. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether the method used to identify individual "iHug" lamps falls within the scope of this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of the identifier in modern IoT devices can range from immutable hardware addresses to configurable software-based IDs.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the identifier's purpose is to "identify an individual light source independent of any address associated with that light source" ('202 Patent, col. 5:10-12). A plaintiff could argue this supports a broad interpretation covering any unique, persistent identifier that distinguishes the device on the network, such as a factory-set serial number or MAC address.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term "permanently" implies an identifier that is immutable for the life of the device. The patent does not explicitly define "permanently," which could allow for an argument that any identifier subject to modification via firmware or software updates does not meet this limitation. The patent simply states it is "retained in a non-transitory computer-readable memory" ('202 Patent, col. 4:19-22).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads induced infringement in the alternative, alleging Defendant has full knowledge of the patent and intentionally encourages infringement by selling the Accused Products and providing instructions (e.g., on its Amazon store) for users to connect them to a network and operate them in the claimed manner (Compl. ¶¶103, 105).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving actual notice of the '202 patent and the infringement allegations on at least two separate occasions: November 23, 2022 (via Amazon) and January 24, 2023 (via counsel, including a claim chart) (Compl. ¶¶52-53, 98).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define the scope of a "permanently assigned... identifier"? The outcome will likely depend on whether the specific type of identifier used in the accused "iHug" lamps is found to be "permanently assigned" within the meaning of the patent.
- A key evidentiary question will be the demonstration of the accused system's operation. The case may turn on the evidence Plaintiff can produce, likely through technical analysis and discovery, to prove that the accused products implement the specific server-based, message-relaying architecture required by the functional limitations of the asserted claims.