Get Lit LLC v. Shenzen Lanka Electronics Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Get Lit, LLC (Kansas)
  • Defendant: Shenzhen Lanka Electronics Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dickinson Wright PLLC; Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01802, N.D. Ill., 03/22/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant’s business activities targeting consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through an interactive e-commerce store on Amazon.com. The complaint alleges Defendant has targeted sales to Illinois residents, shipped products to Illinois, and caused tortious injury in the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Wi-Fi connected touch lamps infringe a patent related to communicative lighting systems.
• Technical Context: The technology involves networked lighting devices that allow users to communicate simple messages or presence to one another over long distances by touching one device to cause a linked device to light up.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement on two separate occasions prior to filing suit. The first notice was allegedly sent by Plaintiff's attorneys on February 13, 2023, and included a claim chart. The second was sent through Amazon on March 17, 2023. These notices form the basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016-05-02	’202 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 62/330,357)
2020-03-10	’202 Patent Issue Date
2023-02-13	Plaintiff sends first notice of infringement to Defendant
2023-03-17	Plaintiff sends second notice of infringement to Defendant
2023-03-22	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 addresses the limitation of using light for communication, which has historically been confined to the direct line of sight between individuals (’202 Patent, col. 1:20-30). The invention seeks to enable light-based 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 describes a system of two or more network-connected light sources that are associated with each other via a central server. Each light source has an input mechanism (e.g., a touch-sensitive surface), a light output, and a unique, permanently assigned identifier stored in its memory (’202 Patent, col. 1:47-60). When a user interacts with one light source, it sends a message to the server, which then relays a command to the associated light source(s), causing their light output to change, thereby communicating a message across a network (’202 Patent, col. 2:1-13; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for the use of ambient light to convey "thoughts and emotions over a great distance," leveraging the "emotional power of light" in a networked environment not previously possible (’202 Patent, col. 1:43-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 (’Compl. ¶18).
• 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 in its memory.
  • A second light source with an input mechanism, a light output mechanism, and a permanently assigned second identifier in its memory.
  • A server connected to a network accessible by both light sources.
  • The server receives messages to "associate" the first and second light sources.
  • An input at the first light source alters the output of the second, and an input at the second alters the output of the first.
  • The process involves the first light source transmitting a message to the server, which then transmits a message to the second light source to alter its light output (and vice-versa).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but infringement is alleged for "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Accused Products are "Wi-Fi connected 'touch lamps'" sold under the "LK&smart" brand on an Amazon storefront operated by Defendant (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are sold as a system of lamps that connect to a home Wi-Fi network (Compl. ¶17). Their advertised function is that when a user touches one lamp, the lamp connected to it, which can be located anywhere in the world, will light up, letting the other user know they are being thought of (Compl. ¶17). This functionality depends on the lamps being connected to a network and, implicitly, a central server that manages the connection and communication between the paired lamps (Compl. ¶33, p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’202 Patent (Compl. ¶23). It incorporates by reference an external claim chart (Exhibit B) that was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶18, ¶25). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Based on the narrative allegations, the infringement theory is that the Defendant’s system of LK&smart touch lamps embodies each element of the claimed system. The theory posits that one lamp constitutes the "first light source" and a paired lamp constitutes the "second light source" (Compl. ¶11-12). The requirement for a "home Wi-Fi network" allegedly satisfies the "first network" and "second network" limitations (Compl. ¶17). The core of the allegation is that an unstated server, necessary for the lamps to communicate "no matter where they are in the world," meets the "server" limitation, and that the act of touching one lamp to light up another constitutes the claimed message-passing sequence from the first lamp, to the server, and then to the second lamp (Compl. ¶12, ¶17, ¶33).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint's theory relies on the existence and function of a back-end server operated by or for the Defendant. A central question will be whether discovery reveals a server architecture that performs the specific "associating" and message-relaying functions recited in Claim 1.
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether each lamp contains a "permanently assigned... identifier" as required by the claim. The nature of this identifier (e.g., a hard-coded MAC address versus a software-assigned ID) and how it is used by the system to "associate" the lamps will be a focus of technical discovery.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "permanently assigned ... identifier"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines how individual light sources in the system are uniquely identified and linked. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a dynamically assigned or user-configurable ID falls within the scope of the claim, or if it is limited to an identifier fixed during manufacturing.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the patent, which could support an argument for giving it its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any identifier that remains fixed for the duration of the lamps' association.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests the identifier is fixed, stating that "a unique code may be provided during the manufacturing of a given light source" (’202 Patent, col. 5:12-14). This language could be used to argue that "permanently assigned" implies an unchangeable, factory-set value.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant has "intentionally induced others to infringe" by selling the Accused Products and providing instructions and marketing statements on its Amazon store that "actively and knowingly" encourage users to connect the products to a network and operate them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶33, p. 6-7).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged continuation of infringing activities after receiving actual notice (Compl. ¶26). This allegation is supported by references to a detailed notice letter, including a claim chart, sent on February 13, 2023, and a subsequent notice sent via Amazon on March 17, 2023 (Compl. ¶19-21, ¶27).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "permanently assigned... identifier", which the patent specification suggests is set during manufacturing, be construed to cover the type of identifier used in the accused lamps, the nature of which is currently unknown?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will discovery yield about the Defendant’s back-end system architecture? The case will depend on whether the Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused system includes a "server" that performs the specific functions of receiving messages to "associate" the lamps and relaying input commands as recited in the claims.
3. A central dispute will likely be over knowledge and intent: did the pre-suit notice letters provide sufficient information to establish that any post-notice infringement by the Defendant was willful? The content and clarity of those notices will be critical to both the willfulness and induced infringement claims.