DCT
1:23-cv-01800
Get Lit LLC v. Trade Exposition
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Get Lit, LLC (Kansas)
- Defendant: Trade Exposition (India)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dickinson Wright PLLC; Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01800, N.D. Ill., 05/30/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's interactive e-commerce store on Amazon.com, which allegedly targets and has completed sales to consumers in Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Wi-Fi connected touch lamps infringe a patent related to communicative lighting systems that change illumination in response to remote user input.
- Technical Context: The technology enables ambient, non-verbal communication between users in different locations through a network of synchronized, interactive lamps.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff put Defendant on notice of the alleged infringement through Amazon on November 23, 2022, and again through its attorneys via a notice letter that included a claim chart on January 17, 2023. These notices may form the basis for the willfulness allegations. This filing is a First Amended Complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-05-02 | ’202 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-03-10 | ’202 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-11-23 | Plaintiff provides notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2023-01-17 | Plaintiff provides notice with claim chart to Defendant |
| 2023-05-30 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,588,202 - “Communicative Lighting Systems,” issued March 10, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a desire to use light for communication over distances that preclude direct viewing, thereby allowing individuals to "communicate thoughts and emotions over a great distance" using the "emotional power of light" ('202 Patent, col. 2:34-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system comprising multiple light sources connected over a network. Each light source is associated with others via a unique identifier and a central server ('202 Patent, col. 2:47-60). When a user provides input to one light source (e.g., by touch), a signal is sent via the server to one or more associated remote light sources, causing them to alter their light output, for example by changing color or turning on ('202 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This system creates a method for ambient, non-verbal, and persistent connection between people in different physical locations through simple, networked hardware ('202 Patent, col. 11:30-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 11 of the ’202 Patent (Compl. ¶23).
- The essential elements of Claim 11 are:
- A communicative lighting system comprising a plurality of light sources.
- Each light source includes: a plurality of LEDs in a shade, an input mechanism, a wireless network connection, a processor, and a memory with a "permanently assigned unique identifier" and instructions.
- The system includes a "server" accessible by the light sources that performs part of a "method of interaction."
- The method of interaction includes: (1) a first light source altering its own light output in response to an input; (2) the first light source transmitting a message to a second light source in response to the same input; and (3) the second light source altering its light output in response to the message.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
"Wi-Fi connected 'touch lamps'" sold under the "Telepathy" brand, offered for sale on the "ZOCI VOCI" online storefront on Amazon.com (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Products are marketed with the description, “[e]nter WiFi credentials []once, Telepathy stays connected forever! ... A simple touch then, will make all connected lamps glow” (Compl. ¶17). This description suggests a system where multiple lamps are networked via Wi-Fi and synchronized such that a touch input on one lamp causes a light-based response in other connected lamps, mirroring the functionality described in the ’202 Patent.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references an infringement claim chart in Exhibit B, which was not provided with the filing. The following summary is based on the narrative allegations.
’202 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A communicative lighting system comprising: a plurality of light sources... | The Accused Products are "touch lamps" that operate as a system where "all connected lamps glow," implying a plurality of sources working in concert. | ¶¶16-17 | col. 3:29-32 |
| each of the plurality of light sources comprising: a plurality of light emitting diodes contained within a shade, an input mechanism, a wireless network connection... at least one computer processor... and a non-transitory computer-readable memory containing a permanently assigned unique identifier... and computer readable instructions... to perform at least part of a method of interaction... | The Accused Products are described as "Wi-Fi connected 'touch lamps'" that require users to enter "WiFi credentials," suggesting the presence of a wireless connection, processor, memory, and an input mechanism ("touch"). | ¶¶16-17 | col. 8:62-col. 9:10 |
| a server accessible by at least some of the plurality of light sources via at least one network, the server having at least one computer processor operating based upon computer-readable instructions... to cause the server to perform at least part of the method of interaction... | The system's ability for remote lamps to "stay connected forever" over Wi-Fi implies communication through a central server that facilitates interaction between the individual lamp devices. | ¶¶17, 33 | col. 4:56-65 |
| wherein the method of interaction... comprises: in response to an input received at an input device of a first light source, altering the output of the plurality of light emitting diodes of the first light source; | The description that "A simple touch then, will make all connected lamps glow" suggests that the touched lamp itself also illuminates as part of the system-wide response. | ¶17 | col. 3:20-23 |
| in response to an input received at an input device of a first light source, transmitting a message to at least a second light source; and at the second light source, in response to the message from the first light source, altering the output of the plurality of light emitting diodes of the second light source. | The marketing statement alleges that a "simple touch" on one lamp will "make all connected lamps glow," which describes the core method of one lamp's input causing a remote lamp to change its output. | ¶17 | col. 3:23-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint relies on high-level marketing statements. A central issue will be whether discovery yields technical evidence demonstrating that the Accused Products' internal components (processor, memory, unique identifier) and network architecture (server interaction) actually practice the specific limitations of Claim 11.
- Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the accused system's server performs "at least part of the method of interaction" in the manner claimed, or if it functions merely as a passive data conduit. The functionality of the accused system's device identifier will also be a key point of comparison against the claim requirement for a "permanently assigned unique identifier."
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"permanently assigned unique identifier"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining what distinguishes the claimed system from general-purpose networked devices. Infringement will depend on whether the identifier used in the Accused Products, such as a MAC address or a software-generated ID, qualifies as "permanently assigned" in the context of the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the identifier as a means "to identify an individual light source independent of any address associated with that light source," which could support an argument that any unique, persistent hardware ID falls within the claim scope ('202 Patent, col. 5:9-12).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discusses this identifier in the context of pairing light sources at a server ('202 Patent, col. 2:57-60). This could support a narrower construction requiring an identifier specifically provisioned for use within the patented communication ecosystem, and one that is not user-modifiable.
"server... to perform at least part of the method of interaction"
- Context and Importance: The precise role of the server is a core architectural element of the claim. The dispute may focus on whether the server must perform an active, logical function (e.g., managing pairings, processing commands) or if a simple message-passing service would suffice.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a server that receives a message from a first light source and then transmits it to a second light source, a function that could be performed by a generic cloud messaging broker ('202 Patent, col. 2:20-29).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes the server as the component where light sources are associated with one another and where unique identifiers are used to "pair" the devices, suggesting a more active role in managing the system's state and relationships ('202 Patent, col. 2:57-60).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant has "intentionally induced others to infringe" by selling the Accused Products and by providing instructions and encouragement "through its statements on its Amazon store" for users to operate the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶31, 33).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving alleged actual notice of the ’202 Patent and the infringement allegations on at least two occasions prior to the suit: November 23, 2022, and January 17, 2023 (Compl. ¶¶19-20, 26).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can Plaintiff demonstrate through technical evidence that the internal software architecture and network operations of the Accused Products, particularly the nature of the device identifier and the server's function, align with the specific technical requirements of Claim 11, moving beyond the marketing language cited in the complaint?
- The case will also turn on a question of claim construction: How broadly will the court construe the term "permanently assigned unique identifier"? Whether a standard, factory-set hardware ID meets this limitation, or if a more specialized, application-specific identifier is required, will be a critical determinant of infringement.