Get Lit LLC v. Trade Exposition: FRIENDSHIP LAMPs Patent Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
Get Lit, LLC filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting US10588202B1 against Trade Exposition over the FRIENDSHIP LAMPs® connected lighting product. After 449 days of litigation, the parties jointly secured a dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), leaving the door open for future proceedings.
Connected lighting IP dispute ends without merits ruling in N.D. Illinois
Get Lit, LLC commenced this infringement action on March 22, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting US10588202B1 against Trade Exposition. The patent covers technology underlying the FRIENDSHIP LAMPs® product line — a category of connected lighting devices designed to enable non-verbal, ambient communication between remote users. The assertion targets alleged unauthorised commercialisation of technology that Get Lit contends falls within the scope of the issued claims.
The case concluded on June 13, 2024 when the court granted the plaintiff’s joint motion to amend the protective order and simultaneously entered a dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). That procedural vehicle requires a stipulation signed by all parties, confirming that both Get Lit and Trade Exposition agreed to end the litigation at this stage. Critically, a dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying claims — Get Lit retains the right to refile.
The 449-day duration before resolution, combined with the joint nature of the motion and the concurrent amendment to the protective order, suggests the parties may have reached a private arrangement not reflected in the public docket. The protective order amendment is consistent with a need to manage confidential information exchanged during discovery in connection with any resolution. The public record does not disclose settlement terms, licensing arrangements, or the reasons underlying the agreed dismissal.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 449 days
449 days in litigation — above typical N.D. Illinois single-patent case duration before voluntary resolution
Rule 41 dismissal without prejudice: what it means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires mutual consent — not a unilateral exit
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permits dismissal by filing a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. This is not a unilateral plaintiff withdrawal — Trade Exposition agreed. The ‘without prejudice’ designation means no judgment on the merits was entered, and the patent claims remain live. The concurrent protective order amendment suggests the parties managed information disclosure as part of the exit.
Consent dismissal — no merits rulingWithout prejudice leaves refiling rights intact — but silence cuts both ways
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar Get Lit from reasserting US10588202B1 against Trade Exposition in a future action, subject to any applicable statute of limitations. However, the public record does not specify whether the parties agreed to any covenant not to sue, licence, or other restriction that would limit that right in practice. Practitioners should not assume the dispute is permanently resolved simply because this case is closed.
Refiling rights preservedTrade Exposition avoids an adverse judgment — but faces residual uncertainty
Trade Exposition exits this proceeding without any finding of infringement or validity determination on US10588202B1. The joint nature of the dismissal suggests it was acceptable to both sides. However, absent a formal licence or covenant not to sue, Trade Exposition cannot treat this dismissal as a clean bill of health. If the product line continues unchanged, the risk of a future assertion from Get Lit — or a successor patentee — remains live.
No infringement findingConnected lighting IP remains unresolved — sector participants should monitor
The absence of a merits ruling means US10588202B1 has not been tested for validity or claim scope in a contested proceeding. For competitors and adjacent product developers in the connected/ambient lighting space, this patent remains an active enforcement risk. The concurrent protective order amendment is consistent with parties having exchanged technical and commercial information — details that do not appear in the public record but may have influenced the resolution.
Patent enforceability intactFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Get Lit, LLC | Company | Connected lighting technology company — holder of US10588202B1 (FRIENDSHIP LAMPs®)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Trade Exposition | Individual | Trade Exposition — accused of infringing FRIENDSHIP LAMPs® connected lighting patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chandler Elizabeth Sturm | Attorney | Counsel for Get Lit, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Scott Becker | Attorney | Counsel for Get Lit, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Janet B. Linn | Attorney | Counsel for Get Lit, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joel H. Rosner | Attorney | Counsel for Get Lit, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kristen Elizabeth Hudson | Attorney | Counsel for Get Lit, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Get Lit, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP | Law Firm | Representing Get Lit, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Alexander Gerasimow | Attorney | Counsel for Trade ExpositionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Law Offices of David A. Gerasimow PC | Law Firm | Representing Trade ExpositionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants a joint motion — meaning both Get Lit and Trade Exposition affirmatively agreed to this outcome. The Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) vehicle confirms mutual consent. The dismissal without prejudice is the operative disposition: no judgment, no claim construction, no validity ruling. The simultaneous amendment to the protective order (ECF No. 22) is procedurally significant — it suggests the parties needed to adjust confidentiality terms as part of wrapping up the case, which is consistent with a private resolution whose terms are not public.
US10588202B1 — FRIENDSHIP LAMPs® connected ambient lighting technology
US10588202B1 was filed under application number US15/584313 and issued to Get Lit, LLC. The patent covers technology in the connected lighting space, specifically the FRIENDSHIP LAMPs® product — a category of networked lamps designed to allow users in different physical locations to communicate presence or emotion through ambient light signals rather than digital messaging. This positions the patent at the intersection of IoT hardware, wireless connectivity, and consumer emotional-communication products.
The strategic significance of US10588202B1 lies in its specificity to a defined and growing consumer IoT segment. As connected home and ambient communication devices proliferate, the claims may reach products marketed under different brand names but employing similar lighting-response-over-network architectures. Because the patent has never been invalidated or claim-construed in a contested proceeding, its enforceability remains intact — making it a material risk factor for any company developing or distributing comparable connected lighting products.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10588202B1?
Any R&D team or product manager working on networked ambient lighting, IoT communication lamps, or presence-signalling consumer devices should treat US10588202B1 as a live clearance concern. The patent has survived litigation without any adverse validity finding, and the FRIENDSHIP LAMPs® product category overlaps with several broader smart home and connected gift product lines. Companies entering or expanding in this space cannot rely on this case’s dismissal as clearance.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to map your product’s technical features against the claims of US10588202B1, identify prosecution history disclaimers, and surface prior art that may inform a design-around or invalidity argument. You can also monitor Get Lit’s assignee portfolio for continuation applications or related patents that may present additional clearance risk — all without manual docketing.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10588202B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar connected lighting and IoT patent infringement cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases asserting IoT and connected lighting patents in the Northern District of Illinois, including comparable dismissal patterns and ambient communication device disputes.
What this case signals for the connected lighting IP landscape
A consent dismissal after 449 days and a protective order amendment rarely happen in isolation — here is what practitioners and product teams should take away.
US10588202B1 has never faced a validity challenge on the merits
Because this case resolved without a merits ruling, the patent’s claims have not been tested in litigation. No IPR petition appears to have been filed. For any company with products in the ambient/connected lighting category, this means the patent retains full presumption of validity and represents an undiminished enforcement asset for Get Lit.
Protective order amendment signals substantive information exchange occurred
Parties rarely seek to amend a protective order on the day of dismissal without a reason tied to the resolution. This pattern is consistent with a settlement or licensing arrangement governing confidential technical or commercial data exchanged in discovery — though the public record does not confirm any such agreement.
Get v Trade — key questions answered
The dismissal without prejudice means no judgment was entered on the merits. US10588202B1 was not invalidated, and its claims were not construed by the court. Get Lit retains the right to refile the action against Trade Exposition or assert the patent against other parties, subject to applicable limitations periods. The patent’s full legal enforceability is unchanged.
The concurrent amendment to the protective order (ECF No. 22) on the date of dismissal suggests the parties needed to modify confidentiality obligations as part of concluding the case. This pattern is consistent with a private resolution — such as a settlement or licence — where the handling of previously exchanged confidential documents or data required formal court-approved terms. The specific reasons are not disclosed in the public docket.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. The case was dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) by joint stipulation, and the protective order was simultaneously amended. These procedural steps are consistent with a private arrangement, but no settlement agreement has been filed on the public docket. The terms, if any, are not publicly available.
US10588202B1, filed as application US15/584313, covers technology underlying the FRIENDSHIP LAMPs® product — networked lighting devices that allow users in separate locations to signal presence or emotion through ambient light rather than conventional digital communication. The patent sits at the intersection of IoT connectivity, consumer hardware, and ambient communication design.
The dismissal without prejudice does not grant Trade Exposition immunity from future infringement claims. No court has ruled that Trade Exposition’s products do not infringe US10588202B1, nor has the patent been invalidated. Unless a private licence or covenant not to sue was agreed (not publicly disclosed), Trade Exposition faces residual risk of a renewed assertion if its products remain unchanged.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.