Go Fan Yourself v. IllumiPure: Four-Patent Air Purification Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Go Fan Yourself, LLC filed a patent infringement action against IllumiPure, Inc. in the Texas Southern District Court, asserting four patents covering air purification and disinfection technology against IllumiPure’s Air Guardian device. The case closed 400 days after filing via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice — a resolution that permanently forecloses re-litigation of the same claims.
Four Air Purification Patents, One Dismissed Infringement Action
On 20 May 2024, Go Fan Yourself, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against IllumiPure, Inc. in the Texas Southern District Court (Case No. 4:24-cv-01894), asserting four US patents — US10316141B2, US10670026B2, US11255336B2, and US11028223B2 — against IllumiPure’s commercially available Air Guardian Air Purification and Disinfection Device. The asserted patents cover innovations in the air purification and disinfection technology space, and IllumiPure’s Air Guardian product was identified as the accused infringing article.
The case closed on 24 June 2025 via a Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice filed by plaintiff Go Fan Yourself, LLC. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits under US procedural rules, meaning the plaintiff cannot re-file the same claims against the same defendant in any federal court. The stipulated nature of the dismissal suggests both parties agreed to the terms, which is consistent with a negotiated resolution — whether licence, settlement payment, or other commercial arrangement — though the specific terms remain confidential and are not reflected in the public record.
The 400-day duration is broadly consistent with cases that settle or resolve commercially before reaching claim construction or trial. The plaintiff’s decision to file a stipulated dismissal with prejudice — rather than without prejudice — is notable: it signals a conclusive resolution rather than a tactical withdrawal. What drove that resolution, whether a licence agreement, design-around by IllumiPure, or other commercial terms, is not disclosed in the public record. The involvement of Sheppard Mullin on the defence side and two specialist plaintiff IP boutiques suggests both parties invested meaningfully in early litigation strategy.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 400 days
400 days from filing to closure — typical for stipulated dismissals that follow early settlement discussions
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars re-litigation
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a final, court-recognised termination of the action. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice — which preserves the right to refile — a with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes the plaintiff’s infringement claims against IllumiPure on the four asserted patents permanently. No court order on the merits was issued; the parties agreed to this resolution jointly.
Permanent claim barGo Fan Yourself cannot refile these claims against IllumiPure
By stipulating to a with-prejudice dismissal, Go Fan Yourself, LLC surrendered its right to pursue the four asserted patents against IllumiPure in any future federal action. This outcome is consistent with a negotiated resolution — a licence, lump-sum payment, or commercial agreement — but those terms are not part of the public record. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties not party to this action.
Claims extinguished vs. IllumiPureIllumiPure secures finality on all four patent claims
IllumiPure, Inc. exits this litigation with permanent protection against re-assertion of the four Go Fan Yourself patents in this action. Whether that protection stems from a licence, a design-around, or another commercial arrangement is unknown from the public record. The Air Guardian product’s continued commercial availability will depend on any terms privately agreed between the parties — including whether a licence was obtained.
Permanent litigation closureAir purification IP remains active — third parties still at risk
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the dispute between these two parties. Go Fan Yourself’s four air purification and disinfection patents — US10316141B2, US10670026B2, US11255336B2, and US11028223B2 — remain in force and assertable against other market participants. Companies developing or selling UV or photocatalytic air purification products should monitor this patent family for potential enforcement risk beyond this single action.
Patents remain enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Go Fan Yourself, LLC | Company | Air purification technology IP licensor — holder of US10316141B2 and three further disinfection patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | IllumiPure, Inc. | Company | IllumiPure, Inc. — developer and seller of the Air Guardian air purification and disinfection deviceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Scott Dowler | Attorney | Counsel for Go Fan Yourself, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas D. Niro | Attorney | Counsel for Go Fan Yourself, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Patrick F. Solon | Attorney | Counsel for Go Fan Yourself, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul K. Vickrey | Attorney | Counsel for Go Fan Yourself, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Park, Vaughan, Fleming & Dowler LLP | Law Firm | Representing Go Fan Yourself, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Vitale Vickrey Niro Solon & Gasey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Go Fan Yourself, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John R. Keville | Attorney | Counsel for IllumiPure, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Charles Krill | Attorney | Counsel for IllumiPure, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Lawrence Green , III | Attorney | Counsel for IllumiPure, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP | Law Firm | Representing IllumiPure, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict record reflects a Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice filed by the plaintiff, Go Fan Yourself, LLC — not a judicial ruling on the merits of any patent claim. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: it operates as a final adjudication barring any future federal action by Go Fan Yourself against IllumiPure on these four patents. The stipulated form indicates both parties consented, which typically signals a negotiated resolution. No claim construction, validity ruling, or damages award appears in the public record.
US10316141B2, US10670026B2, US11255336B2, US11028223B2 — Air Purification & Disinfection
The four patents asserted in this case — US10316141B2, US10670026B2, US11255336B2, and US11028223B2 — were filed across application numbers US16/157874, US16/288614, US16/868042, and US16/377750 respectively, with filings clustered between 2018 and 2020. This prosecution timeline places them squarely in the period of heightened commercial interest in indoor air quality and active disinfection technology, preceding and overlapping with the COVID-19 pandemic-era acceleration of that market. The patents collectively appear to cover system and method claims in the air purification and disinfection domain, consistent with the accused Air Guardian product category.
For the broader air purification and disinfection hardware sector, this patent family represents a meaningful enforcement risk. The four-patent structure — spanning multiple application numbers filed in close sequence — suggests a prosecution strategy designed to create layered claim coverage, making design-arounds more difficult. IllumiPure’s Air Guardian device, which combines air purification and disinfection functionality, is representative of a product class with numerous competitors. Any manufacturer or seller of comparable devices — particularly those using UV, photocatalytic, or ionisation-based disinfection — should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk requiring monitoring.
Should your air purification product be cleared against this patent family?
Product teams and R&D leaders developing air purification, UV disinfection, or active air quality devices should treat the Go Fan Yourself patent family as a live FTO concern. The four patents — US10316141B2, US10670026B2, US11255336B2, and US11028223B2 — have been actively asserted against at least one commercial product (the Air Guardian device), and the with-prejudice dismissal confirms the patentee resolved the dispute on its own terms. That enforcement history increases the likelihood of further assertions against other market participants.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables rapid claim-by-claim mapping of the Go Fan Yourself portfolio against your product specifications. By uploading device schematics or technical descriptions, R&D teams can identify which independent and dependent claims pose the highest overlap risk, and where design-around options exist. Eureka also monitors prosecution history and related family members — critical for a portfolio spanning four application numbers — so your legal team stays ahead of continuation risk as well as issued claims.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10316141B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Air Purification Patent Infringement Cases in US District Courts
Cases involving air purification, disinfection device patents, and multi-patent infringement assertions in Texas federal district courts and comparable US venues.
What this case signals for the air purification IP landscape
A four-patent assertion resolved in 400 days with prejudice suggests enforceable IP and a commercially motivated defendant — a pattern worth tracking.
Multi-patent assertions create settlement leverage even before claim construction
Asserting four related patents in a single action raises the cost and complexity of defence significantly. The 400-day resolution before any reported claim construction hearing suggests the multi-patent strategy applied meaningful commercial pressure on IllumiPure — consistent with outcomes where defendants opt to resolve rather than litigate through Markman proceedings.
Texas Southern District remains an active venue for patent infringement actions
The plaintiff’s choice of the Texas Southern District Court — rather than the Western District of Texas — reflects a broader pattern of IP enforcement activity across Texas federal venues. Companies operating in connected hardware and IoT-adjacent spaces should track docket activity in both districts as part of standard IP monitoring.
Go v IllumiPure — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of the plaintiff, Go Fan Yourself, LLC, on 24 June 2025 — 400 days after filing. A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Go Fan Yourself from re-asserting the four patents in suit against IllumiPure in any future federal action. The terms of any underlying settlement or licence are not part of the public record.
Go Fan Yourself asserted four US patents: US10316141B2 (App. No. US16/157874), US10670026B2 (App. No. US16/288614), US11255336B2 (App. No. US16/868042), and US11028223B2 (App. No. US16/377750). All four cover air purification and disinfection technology and were filed between 2018 and 2020.
A dismissal with prejudice means Go Fan Yourself cannot refile the same infringement claims against IllumiPure on these four patents. IllumiPure receives permanent litigation closure on this specific dispute. However, the dismissal does not invalidate the patents — they remain enforceable against other third parties. Whether IllumiPure obtained a licence as part of the resolution is not disclosed in the public record.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the dispute between Go Fan Yourself and IllumiPure. The four asserted patents — US10316141B2, US10670026B2, US11255336B2, and US11028223B2 — remain granted and enforceable. The prior enforcement action against a commercial air purification device suggests active licensing or enforcement intent. Competing manufacturers in the air purification and disinfection space should conduct FTO analysis against this portfolio.
The Texas Southern District Court has seen increased patent infringement filings in recent years, particularly as plaintiffs have diversified beyond the Western District of Texas. The choice of venue is consistent with broader trends of IP enforcement activity across Texas federal courts. No specific venue justification is stated in the available public record for this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.