DCT
1:23-cv-01800
Get Lit LLC v. Trade Exposition
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., 08/15/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant’s interactive e-commerce store on Amazon.com, which 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 allow paired lamps to change states in response to an input on one of the lamps.
- Technical Context: The technology falls within the Internet of Things (IoT) consumer electronics space, where physical objects are network-connected to enable remote interaction and communication.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff put Defendant on notice of infringement of the asserted patent via Amazon on November 23, 2022, and again through its attorneys with a detailed claim chart on January 17, 2023. This history may be relevant to allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-05-02 | ’202 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-03-10 | ’202 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-11-23 | Plaintiff notice to Defendant of ’202 Patent infringement via Amazon |
| 2023-01-17 | Plaintiff notice to Defendant of ’202 Patent infringement via counsel |
| 2023-08-15 | 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 the longstanding use of light to communicate information (e.g., "one if by land, two if by sea"), but notes the limitation that the recipient must be able to directly view the light source (’202 Patent, col. 1:23-30). The invention seeks to permit "communication over distances greater than the distance from which a light source may be directly viewed" (’202 Patent, col. 1:33-36).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a system of two or more network-connected light sources that are associated with one another via a server (’202 Patent, col. 2:1-13, FIG. 1). Each light source has a unique identifier. When a user provides an input to a first light source (e.g., by touch), it sends a message to the server, which then relays a corresponding message to a second, associated light source, causing the second light source to alter its light output (e.g., change color) (’202 Patent, col. 2:19-29). This architecture allows for a form of emotional communication across vast geographical distances (’202 Patent, col. 1:41-47).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a technical framework for creating ambient, non-verbal communication devices that leverage modern network infrastructure to connect individuals emotionally despite physical separation (’202 Patent, col. 12:26-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 59, 61).
- The essential elements of independent claim 11 include:
- A system with a plurality of light sources.
- Each light source comprises: light emitting diodes (LEDs), an input mechanism, a wireless network connection, a computer processor, and a non-transitory memory with a permanently assigned unique identifier and instructions.
- A server accessible by the light sources via a network.
- A method of interaction where: (1) an input at a first light source alters its own output; (2) the input at the first light source causes a message to be transmitted to a second light source; and (3) the second light source alters its output in response to the message.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Products" are "Wi-Fi connected 'touch lamps'" sold by Defendant under the "Telepathy" brand through online storefronts on Amazon, Etsy, and Walmart, among others (Compl. ¶¶ 32-35).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused lamps are designed to be used in pairs or groups (Compl. ¶37). According to Defendant's product descriptions, after an initial Wi-Fi setup, a "simple touch" on one lamp "will make all connected lamps glow" (Compl. ¶37). The complaint alleges that this functionality allows users of connected lamps to communicate with each other when an input is made on one light source (Compl. ¶69).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint states that a detailed claim chart was provided as Exhibit C, but this exhibit is not attached to the filed document (Compl. ¶38, ¶61). The following analysis is based on the narrative infringement allegations in the complaint.
’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 sold as "touch lamps" intended to be used in connected groups. | ¶32, ¶37 | col. 15:60-61 |
| each of the plurality of light sources comprising: a plurality of light emitting diodes contained within a shade, | The accused products are described as "lamps" that "glow." | ¶37 | col. 15:64-65 |
| an input mechanism, | Defendant's product description states a "simple touch" will activate the system. | ¶37 | col. 16:1-2 |
| a wireless network connection providing a data connection to at least one wireless network, | The accused products are described as "Wi-Fi connected." | ¶32 | col. 16:3-5 |
| at least one computer processor that receives inputs from the input mechanism, controls the output of the light emitting diodes, and sends and receives communications over the wireless network connection, and | This functionality is implicitly alleged by the description of a Wi-Fi connected device that responds to touch input by communicating with other lamps. | ¶37, ¶69 | col. 16:6-9 |
| a non-transitory computer-readable memory containing a permanently assigned unique identifier... | The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations regarding the internal memory or unique identifiers of the accused products. | col. 17:3-11 | |
| a server accessible by at least some of the plurality of light sources via at least one network... | Plaintiff alleges Defendant induces users to connect the products to a network accessible by a server that receives messages from the lamps. | ¶69 | col. 17:12-19 |
| 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 complaint does not explicitly allege that the touched lamp itself alters its output, focusing instead on the remote lamp. | col. 17:23-25 | |
| in response to an input received...transmitting a message to at least a second light source; and | The complaint alleges that a touch on one lamp causes "all connected lamps" to react, which requires the transmission of a message. | ¶37, ¶69 | col. 17:26-28 |
| at the second light source, in response to the message from the first light source, altering the output...of the second light source. | Defendant's product description states a touch on one lamp "will make all connected lamps glow." | ¶37 | col. 17:29-32 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations are based primarily on external observations and marketing materials. A central question for discovery will be whether the internal architecture of the Accused Products contains every claimed element, such as a processor configured to perform the claimed functions and a memory containing a "permanently assigned unique identifier."
- Technical Questions: Does a "simple touch" on the accused lamp meet the "input mechanism" limitation as construed in light of the patent's specification, which describes specific embodiments like conductive ink and frames? (e.g., ’202 Patent, col. 8:36-44).
- Scope Questions: Claim 11 requires that an input on the first light source alters the output of the first light source. The complaint's allegations focus on the effect on the second light source ("make all connected lamps glow," Compl. ¶37). A potential dispute may arise over whether the Accused Products practice this specific local-alteration step.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "permanently assigned unique identifier"
Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the patent's method for associating specific light sources with one another over a network (’202 Patent, col. 2:50-59). The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused system uses identifiers that are "permanently assigned." Practitioners may focus on this term because the method of pairing the accused lamps is not described in the complaint, and the definition of "permanently" could be debated (e.g., assigned at manufacture vs. assigned at first use and not changed).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not specify when the identifier must be assigned, only that it is permanent once assigned. This could support a view that an identifier set during user configuration that is not subsequently changed meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests the unique identifier "may be provided during the manufacturing of a given light source" (’202 Patent, col. 5:12-14), which could support an argument that the identifier must be hardcoded at the factory and unchangeable by the user.
The Term: "input mechanism"
Context and Importance: The complaint alleges a "simple touch" satisfies this limitation (Compl. ¶37). The validity and infringement analyses will turn on the scope of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic, and the patent mentions various input types, including "buttons, levers, dials, keyboards, motion detectors," etc., suggesting the term is not limited to a single technology (’202 Patent, col. 7:29-32).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides significant detail on touch-based inputs using "capacitance sensing," "conductive ink," and "conducting frame[s]" (’202 Patent, col. 2:30-36; col. 8:36-44). A defendant might argue these detailed descriptions limit the scope of "input mechanism" to the specific touch-sensitive technologies disclosed.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant, with knowledge of the patent, encourages infringement through "statements on its Amazon store and elsewhere" and by selling the products for operation in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶69). The alleged instruction that "A simple touch then, will make all connected lamps glow" is presented as evidence of inducing the claimed method (Compl. ¶37, ¶69).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’202 Patent. Plaintiff alleges Defendant had notice as of November 23, 2022, and received a more detailed notice including a claim chart on January 17, 2023, but continued its allegedly infringing conduct (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 54, 62, 70).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can Plaintiff, through discovery, demonstrate that the internal hardware and software architecture of the accused "Telepathy" lamps maps onto the specific system components recited in Claim 11, particularly the "permanently assigned unique identifier" and the specific functions of the processor and server? The complaint's high-level allegations based on product marketing leave this as a critical open question.
The case may also turn on a question of claim scope: How will the court construe the term "input mechanism"? Will it be given its broad, plain meaning, or will it be limited by the detailed descriptions of capacitive touch-sensing technology in the patent's specification? The answer will determine whether the accused product's "simple touch" functionality falls within the scope of the claims.
A key question of infringement mapping will be whether the accused system practices every step of the claimed "method of interaction." Specifically, discovery will need to confirm if an input on a first lamp alters the output of that same lamp, a step required by the claim but not explicitly detailed in the complaint's infringement theory.