Go Fan Yourself v. Olympia Lighting: UVC Troffer Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
Go Fan Yourself, LLC filed suit against Olympia Lighting, Inc. in the District of New Jersey asserting six patents covering UVC troffer air purification and disinfection technology. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal with prejudice in just 93 days, with each side bearing its own costs and attorney’s fees.
Six-Patent UVC Disinfection Dispute Ends in Rapid Stipulated Dismissal
Go Fan Yourself, LLC filed this infringement action on 28 April 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting six U.S. patents — US10316141B2, US11332573B2, US10221857B2, US10670026B2, US11255336B2, and US11028223B2 — against Olympia Lighting, Inc. The asserted patents collectively cover UVC troffer devices used for air purification and disinfection, including hidden UVC light arrays designed for human-eye safety. Specific accused products include Olympia’s UVT and UVW product lines across multiple wattage configurations.
The case closed on 30 July 2025 via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Both parties signed through their respective counsel. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is critical: Go Fan Yourself is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against Olympia Lighting on the same accused products. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement — with no fee award to either side — suggests neither party conceded fault and that commercial considerations likely drove the resolution.
The 93-day case duration is notably compressed, suggesting the parties entered serious settlement dialogue very early, possibly before significant discovery or claim construction proceedings were initiated. Whether a confidential licence, business arrangement, or simple commercial calculus drove the resolution is not apparent from the public record. The dismissal with prejudice forecloses any future litigation on these specific claims between these parties, making the terms of any private agreement — if one exists — strategically significant for the UVC lighting sector.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 93 days
93-day resolution — well below the median 2–3 year patent case lifecycle in D.N.J.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires signatures from all parties who have appeared. Unlike a unilateral voluntary dismissal, both sides consented here. The ‘with prejudice’ qualifier means the action is terminated on the merits — Go Fan Yourself cannot refile these specific claims against Olympia Lighting on the same accused products in any federal court.
Permanent bar on re-filingGo Fan Yourself permanently closes this avenue against Olympia
Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes Go Fan Yourself’s right to pursue the six asserted UVC patents against Olympia Lighting on the accused product lines. This is a significant concession of litigation leverage unless a private agreement — such as a licensing deal or market-exit commitment — runs alongside the dismissal. The public record is silent on whether any such arrangement exists, but the mutual cost-bearing clause is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution.
Claims extinguished vs. OlympiaOlympia Lighting achieves certainty but pays its own legal fees
Olympia Lighting obtains a permanent dismissal of all infringement claims and any counterclaims, providing full certainty on these six patents with respect to this plaintiff. The no-fee-shifting clause means Olympia absorbs its own defence costs, suggesting neither party achieved a clear-cut legal win. The rapid resolution — 93 days — minimised the overall exposure and avoided costly claim construction or discovery phases.
Full certainty achieved at own costUVC troffer IP landscape remains active — six patents still enforceable
The six Go Fan Yourself patents survive unchallenged on their merits. No invalidity ruling was issued, no claim construction narrowed their scope, and no IPR petition is referenced in the record. Competitors and new entrants in the UVC troffer and air disinfection space should treat this portfolio as live and enforceable. The rapid dismissal offers no guidance on the probable claim scope or validity of any of the six patents.
Portfolio remains fully enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | GO FAN YOURSELF, LLC | Company | UVC air disinfection technology company — holder of US10316141B2 and 5 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | OLYMPIA LIGHTING, INC. | Company | Olympia Lighting, Inc. — commercial lighting manufacturer accused of infringing UVC troffer patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | ADLAI J.J. SMALL | Attorney | Counsel for GO FAN YOURSELF, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | FRANCESCA SIMONE | 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 SOLON | Attorney | Counsel for GO FAN YOURSELF, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO USDC – NJ BAR | Law Firm | Representing GO FAN YOURSELF, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Spiro Harrison & Nelson | Law Firm | Representing GO FAN YOURSELF, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | ARTHUR L. PORTER , JR. | Attorney | Counsel for OLYMPIA LIGHTING, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | FISCHER, PORTER & THOMAS PC | Law Firm | Representing OLYMPIA LIGHTING, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation uses the precise language required under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — joint filing by all appearing parties — and expressly extends the dismissal with prejudice to ‘all claims and counterclaims.’ This bilateral scope is significant: it eliminates any pending counterclaims Olympia may have raised, not just Go Fan Yourself’s infringement assertions. The explicit mutual cost-bearing clause removes any inference of a prevailing party for fee-shifting purposes under 35 U.S.C. § 285, closing off any subsequent exceptional-case motion by either side.
US10316141B2 — UVC troffer air purification and disinfection technology
The six asserted patents — US10316141B2, US11332573B2, US10221857B2, US10670026B2, US11255336B2, and US11028223B2 — form a portfolio filed across application numbers in the US16/xxxxxx series, suggesting a continuation or family structure with staggered grant dates. The patents collectively protect UVC-based air purification and disinfection technology embodied in troffer-style ceiling fixtures, including the specific architectural feature of concealing UVC emitters from direct human exposure — a critical safety and regulatory consideration in occupied-space deployment.
The commercial relevance of this portfolio rose sharply following heightened demand for UV-C disinfection solutions in commercial and healthcare environments. A troffer form factor — the standard recessed 2×2 or 2×4 ceiling tile format — means the protected technology integrates directly into existing building infrastructure, giving it broad addressable market reach. Competitors marketing lay-in UVC disinfection products, particularly those with concealed emitter architectures or similar wattage profiles to Olympia’s UVT and UVW lines, face meaningful infringement risk without a prior FTO analysis.
Should your UVC troffer product be cleared against this patent family?
Any company developing, importing, distributing, or commercialising UVC air disinfection devices in a troffer or lay-in ceiling format — particularly those incorporating hidden or shielded UVC emitter designs — should treat this six-patent portfolio as a live enforcement risk. The case against Olympia Lighting targeted specific model numbers across a wattage range of 70W to 150W, which suggests the patent claims may be drafted broadly enough to capture a range of commercial configurations rather than a narrow product-specific embodiment.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map product features against independent claims across all six patents simultaneously, identify prosecution history estoppel that may limit claim scope, and surface prior art that could support a future IPR petition. Given that no invalidity finding was made in this case, Eureka’s claim-charting and family-tracking tools provide the fastest route to an informed go/no-go decision for UVC troffer product launches.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10316141B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar UVC air disinfection patent cases in federal district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving UVC disinfection and air purification technology filed in federal district courts, including the District of New Jersey.
What this case signals for the UVC air disinfection IP landscape
A six-patent UVC disinfection suit resolved in 93 days sends clear signals about portfolio strength, enforcement strategy, and competitor risk.
Go Fan Yourself holds a broad, unchallenged UVC troffer patent portfolio
Six granted U.S. patents were asserted and none were invalidated or narrowed. Any company designing, importing, or selling UVC troffer disinfection devices — particularly lay-in ceiling formats with hidden UVC arrays — should assess exposure against this portfolio before commercialising. The absence of an IPR challenge suggests Olympia elected settlement over a validity fight.
93-day resolution suggests pre-litigation negotiation or early commercial agreement
Cases asserting six patents rarely settle before claim construction unless the parties have a pre-existing commercial relationship or the infringement position is commercially difficult to contest. The mutual cost-bearing provision and compressed timeline consistently point toward a private arrangement rather than a pure capitulation. Monitoring subsequent licensing or distribution activity between these parties may reveal more.
GO v OLYMPIA — key questions answered
Go Fan Yourself asserted six U.S. patents: US10316141B2, US11332573B2, US10221857B2, US10670026B2, US11255336B2, and US11028223B2. All relate to UVC troffer air purification and disinfection technology, including hidden UVC emitter designs for human-eye safety.
The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), agreeing to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. The public record does not disclose the underlying reason, but the 93-day timeline and mutual cost-bearing clause suggest a private commercial resolution rather than a merits adjudication.
A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Go Fan Yourself from re-asserting the same claims arising from the same patents against Olympia Lighting on the accused UVC troffer products. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other third parties, and no invalidity finding was made in this case.
The accused products include Olympia Lighting’s UVT-2X2FT-80W-UVC-120V, UVT-2X4FT-90W-UVC-120V, UVT-2x4FT-100W-UVC-120V, UVW-70W-UVC-120V, UVW-100W-UVC-120V, UVW-110W-UVC-120V, and UVW-150W-UVC-120V — a range of UVC disinfection lay-in LED troffer and wall-mount units.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice applies only to Olympia Lighting and makes no determination on patent validity or claim scope. All six patents remain granted and enforceable. Manufacturers of competing UVC troffer or air disinfection devices — particularly those with hidden emitter designs — should conduct FTO analysis before commercialising products that could fall within the claim scope.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.