Get Lit LLC v. Shenzhen Keruisi Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Get Lit, LLC (Kansas)
  • Defendant: Shenzhen Keruisi Technology Co., Ltd. (China); Dongguanjingxingwujinyouxiangongsi (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dickinson Wright PLLC; Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01166, N.D. Ill., 02/24/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants' operation of interactive e-commerce stores on Amazon.com that allegedly target and sell infringing products to consumers in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Wi-Fi connected touch lamps infringe a patent related to communicative lighting systems that allow users to interact with one lamp to cause a corresponding change in a linked lamp.
• Technical Context: The technology enables non-verbal, ambient communication over long distances using a network of synchronized lights, often marketed for maintaining emotional connection between friends or family members.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with notice of infringement, including claim charts, on multiple occasions beginning in November 2022, several months prior to filing the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016-05-02	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,588,202
2020-03-10	U.S. Patent No. 10,588,202 Issued
2022-11-23	Plaintiff allegedly put Defendants on notice of infringement
2023-01-17	Plaintiff allegedly put Defendant Longdistan on notice
2023-01-24	Plaintiff's counsel allegedly put Defendant on notice
2023-02-24	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,588,202 - "Communicative Lighting Systems"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,588,202 ("the ’202 Patent"), "Communicative Lighting Systems", issued March 10, 2020. (Compl. ¶11).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes that light has long been used for communication, but its utility is historically limited by the need for the recipient to be within visual range of the light source. (’202 Patent, col. 2:20-31). The invention seeks to overcome this limitation to allow for communication "over distances greater than the distance from which a light source may be directly viewed." (’202 Patent, col. 2:34-37).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system of multiple, network-connected light sources that are associated with one another via a central server. Each light source has a unique, permanently assigned identifier. When a user provides an input to one light source (e.g., by touching it), that device sends a message to the server, which in turn relays a command to one or more associated light sources, causing their light output to change (e.g., altering color or brightness). This architecture allows for reciprocal communication between the lamps. (’202 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-col. 3:3). The system diagram in Figure 1 illustrates this server-mediated (190) communication between two remote light sources (110, 120).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for the use of light to convey "thoughts and emotions over a great distance," leveraging the "emotional power of light" in a way not previously possible. (’202 Patent, col. 2:42-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶29).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A first and second light source, each connected to a network.
  • Each light source having an input mechanism, a light output mechanism, and a "permanently assigned" identifier stored in memory.
  • A server accessible to both light sources that receives messages to "associate the first light source and the second light source with one another."
  • The system is configured such that an input at the first lamp alters the output of the second, and an input at the second lamp alters the output of the first.
  • Instructions cause the lamps to contact the server to register their network addresses.
  • The message flow for altering a remote lamp is specified: "input -> first lamp -> server -> second lamp -> altered light output".
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but states Defendants infringe "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• "Wi-Fi connected 'touch lamps'" sold by Defendants on Amazon.com under the FUDEECON and Longdistan brands (the "Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are described as "Long Distance Touch Lamps" that allow users to interact through a "WiFi connection." (Compl. ¶19). When one lamp is touched, "the other will light up in the same color," enabling interaction regardless of distance. (Compl. ¶19).
• The setup process allegedly involves users registering an account, connecting the lamp via Bluetooth, and using a "device ID at the bottom of the product" to "bind the device." (Compl. ¶20). Users can then "add friends" by "binding friend ID," which appears to be the mechanism for associating lamps with each other. (Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart exhibit (Exhibit 2) that was not provided. The following chart summarizes the infringement allegations based on the narrative descriptions of the Accused Products' functionality within the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’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 Products are "Wi-Fi connected 'touch lamps'" that light up and can be interacted with by touch.	¶¶17, 19	col. 6:45-55
...and a permanently assigned first identifier retained in a non-transitory computer-readable memory within the first light source...	The setup instructions for the Accused Products refer to a "device ID at the bottom of the product" used to "bind the device."	¶20	col. 5:8-14
a second light source connected to a second network...	The system involves multiple lamps sold by Defendants which are described as being identical.	¶¶19, 22	col. 4:38-45
a server connected to at least one network accessible to both the first light source... and the second light source... the server receiving messages... to associate the first light source and the second light source with one another...	The setup process requires users to "register your account and login" and "add friends ... binding friend ID" to link the lamps for interaction.	¶20	col. 4:56-65
...such that when an input is made using the at least one input mechanism at the first light source the operation of the at least one light output mechanism of the second light source alters...	Defendants' product description states, "just touch your lamp and the other will light up in the same color."	¶19	col. 2:7-13
...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 of the at least one light output mechanism of the second light source...	The complaint alleges a system where lamps connect via Wi-Fi to interact, which implies a server-mediated communication path to function over long distances as advertised.	¶¶17, 19	col. 2:19-28

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "device ID" cited in the complaint (Compl. ¶20) qualifies as a "permanently assigned" identifier as required by the claim. The analysis will depend on whether this ID is fixed at manufacture and unchangeable by the user.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies on product descriptions and user instructions from an Amazon listing (Compl. ¶¶19-20). A key question for the court will be what technical evidence demonstrates that the Accused Products actually operate using the specific "lamp -> server -> lamp" messaging architecture recited in the claim, as opposed to another networking protocol.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "permanently assigned ... identifier"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical for infringement, as the Plaintiff maps it to the "device ID" mentioned in the Accused Products' setup instructions (Compl. ¶20). The strength of the infringement case may depend on whether this "device ID" can be proven to be "permanently assigned." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a factory-set but potentially modifiable identifier meets the claim limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the identifier is assigned at a fixed point, stating, "Such a unique code may be provided during the manufacturing of a given light source." (’202 Patent, col. 5:12-14). This could support an interpretation where "permanently" refers to the act of assignment at manufacture, not necessarily to the impossibility of future modification.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent uses the word "permanently," which implies immutability. Elsewhere, the patent distinguishes between permanent and temporary features, noting a server address "may be permanent or temporary" (’202 Patent, col. 4:67-68). A defendant could argue this shows the patentee deliberately chose the stronger term "permanently" for the identifier, requiring it to be unchangeable for the life of the device.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads contributory infringement in the alternative, but the factual allegations more closely align with inducement. It alleges Defendants "have intentionally induced others to infringe" by selling the Accused Products and providing instructions on their Amazon store that "actively and knowingly" encourage and facilitate users to connect the products to a network and server, thereby assembling and using the infringing system. (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 39-40).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' continued infringement after receiving alleged actual notice. The complaint cites multiple instances of pre-suit notice, including a notice through Amazon on November 23, 2022, and subsequent notices from counsel in January 2023, which included detailed claim charts. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-26, 32).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the term "permanently assigned identifier" require an identifier that is immutable for the life of the device, or is an identifier assigned during manufacturing sufficient, even if it could theoretically be altered later? The answer will likely determine whether the "device ID" of the Accused Products meets this key claim limitation.
• A second issue will be one of evidentiary proof: The infringement allegations are based on marketing materials and user instructions. A key question is whether Plaintiff can produce technical evidence (such as network traffic analysis) to prove that the Accused Products operate using the specific "lamp -> server -> lamp" communication pathway mandated by Claim 1, or if they function via a technically distinct method.