Illumafinity v. Chinese LED Sellers — Dismissed With Prejudice After 331 Days
Illumafinity, LLC brought a multi-defendant patent infringement action against more than ten Amazon marketplace sellers — predominantly Shenzhen-based LED manufacturers — asserting US7374326B2, which covers illumination modules of light emitting elements. The case closed on 27 September 2024 via stipulated dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.
Multi-seller LED patent action ends in final stipulated dismissal
Filed on 1 November 2023 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Elaine E. Bucklo, Illumafinity, LLC targeted a cohort of Amazon marketplace sellers — including Lhong US, Shenzhen Hengde Lighting Technology, Shenzhen Oulai Optoelectronics, Shenzhen Ruihe Electric, Shenzhenshi Abeitong Technology, Shenzhen Lianxue Optoelectronics, Kimerli, and Yeewhale — alleging infringement of US7374326B2, a patent protecting an illumination module of light emitting elements. The defendants are predominantly Shenzhen-based manufacturers selling through Amazon storefronts.
The action closed on 27 September 2024 through a stipulated dismissal with prejudice filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, meaning Illumafinity cannot re-assert the same patent claims against these specific defendants arising from the same conduct. The stipulation names a subset of defendants — including Shenzhen Oulai, Shenzhen Ruihe, Shenzhenshi Abeitong, and Dong Jun Kun dba LETIANPAI — who jointly agreed to the terms, with each side bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
The 331-day duration and the with-prejudice designation together suggest the parties likely reached a negotiated resolution — potentially including a license, settlement payment, or agreed product modification — before formalising the exit through stipulation. The public record is silent on any financial terms. It is also notable that not all originally named defendants appear in the stipulation, which may indicate that some defendants were separately resolved, defaulted, or remain outstanding; the public docket alone does not clarify this.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 331 days
331 days — above the median for stipulated dismissals in N.D. Illinois patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulation means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the agreement of all parties who have appeared and filed an answer or motion. When entered ‘with prejudice,’ the dismissal operates as a final judgment on the merits — the plaintiff is permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against the same defendants arising from the same operative facts. No court order is required; the filing of the stipulation itself closes the case.
Final — no re-filing permittedIllumafinity loses the right to re-sue these defendants
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Illumafinity, LLC permanently relinquishes its infringement claims against the named defendants for the conduct at issue. This is the hallmark of a negotiated exit: plaintiffs rarely accept a with-prejudice bar without receiving something in return — typically a lump-sum payment, ongoing royalty, or confirmed product withdrawal. The public record does not disclose any such consideration, so the commercial terms remain confidential.
Likely settled on undisclosed termsNamed defendants extinguish all liability for past conduct
The with-prejudice dismissal protects the stipulating defendants from any future suit by Illumafinity on US7374326B2 for the same accused products and time period. Defendants also avoided any cost award. However, dismissal with prejudice does not resolve the underlying validity of US7374326B2 — the patent survives and remains enforceable against other third parties, including Amazon sellers not named in this stipulation.
Past liability extinguished; patent survivesUS7374326B2 remains live — other LED sellers remain exposed
Because no invalidity finding or claim construction ruling was issued, US7374326B2 exits this litigation at full strength. Illumafinity retains the right to assert the patent against other Amazon marketplace LED sellers not named here. The multi-defendant ‘Schedule A’ litigation model used in this case is increasingly common in N.D. Illinois and typically signals an ongoing enforcement campaign rather than a one-time action.
Ongoing enforcement risk for LED sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Illumafinity, LLC | Company | LED lighting IP licensor — holder of US7374326B2 (illumination module of light emitting elements)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified in Schedule A | Individual | Multiple Shenzhen-based Amazon marketplace sellers of LED illumination productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lhong US | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Shenzhen Hengde Lighting Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Shenzhen Oulai Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Shenzhen Ruihe Electric Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Shenzhenshiabeitong Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | The choice is good and | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Shenzhen Lianxue Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Shenzhenshi Abeitong Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Kimerli | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Yeewhale | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Randolph Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Illumafinity, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hao Ni | Attorney | Counsel for Illumafinity, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas Edward Najera | Attorney | Counsel for Illumafinity, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stevenson Moore | Attorney | Counsel for Illumafinity, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Direction IP Law | Law Firm | Representing Illumafinity, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni Law Firm PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Illumafinity, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Illumafinity, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Elaine E. Bucklo | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which requires consent of all appearing parties and self-executes upon filing — no judicial order is needed to close the case. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical operative phrase: it converts a procedural exit into a merits-equivalent adjudication, triggering res judicata as to the named defendants and the accused conduct. The explicit carve-out that ‘the Parties are to bear their respective costs’ eliminates any fee-shifting exposure under 35 U.S.C. § 285 but also confirms no prevailing-party finding was made.
US7374326B2 — Illumination module of light emitting elements
US7374326B2, filed under application number US11/367588, protects an illumination module architecture built around light emitting elements — the core technical category encompassing modern LED array and module designs. The patent covers structural and functional aspects of how light emitting elements are organised and driven within an illumination module, a technology domain that underpins a broad range of consumer and commercial LED lighting products sold through e-commerce channels.
For the LED lighting sector, US7374326B2 represents a foundational-style claim that can potentially read across a wide variety of product configurations sold by Amazon marketplace sellers — particularly Chinese-manufactured LED strip lights, panel modules, and spotlight arrays. The patent’s breadth relative to commodity LED products is precisely what makes it commercially useful in enforcement campaigns: the cost of litigation defence often exceeds the value of individual product lines, structurally incentivising settlement. Companies designing or sourcing LED illumination modules for the US market should conduct direct claim mapping against this patent.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7374326B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling LED illumination modules — particularly through Amazon or similar online marketplaces — should treat US7374326B2 as an active enforcement risk. Illumafinity’s demonstrated willingness to pursue multi-defendant Schedule A actions in N.D. Illinois means new seller cohorts may be named in future filings. Product teams sourcing LED modules from Shenzhen-based suppliers should request claim charts or conduct independent FTO analysis before listing products in the US market.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to map the claims of US7374326B2 against specific product designs — identifying which claim elements your LED module architecture does or does not practise. Eureka can also surface continuation applications, related family members, and co-pending prosecution history that may affect claim scope, giving procurement and product teams the evidence base needed to make informed sourcing and design-around decisions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7374326B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LED patent enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois Schedule A litigation
Cases involving LED lighting patent enforcement through Schedule A multi-defendant actions in the Northern District of Illinois, where Amazon marketplace sellers are the primary targets.
What this case signals for the LED lighting IP enforcement landscape
Schedule A multi-defendant actions targeting Amazon sellers are becoming a dominant IP enforcement model in N.D. Illinois — this case is a textbook example.
With-prejudice exits strongly suggest confidential settlement activity
Plaintiffs in patent enforcement actions rarely accept a with-prejudice bar for free. The 331-day duration and the structured stipulation naming specific Amazon store IDs suggest individual negotiated outcomes with at least some defendants — likely involving licensing or product withdrawal rather than a clean walk-away.
US7374326B2 survives intact — FTO is still required for LED sellers
No claim construction or invalidity ruling was entered. The patent exits this litigation fully enforceable. Any Amazon marketplace seller offering LED illumination modules that could read on US7374326B2 claims should treat this case as a signal, not a clearance. Illumafinity’s enforcement pattern suggests further actions are plausible.
Illumafinity v Partnerships — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) means Illumafinity, LLC permanently cannot re-file the same patent infringement claims against the named defendants for the same accused conduct. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, even though no court verdict was reached.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only the claims between Illumafinity and the specifically named defendants. No invalidity ruling or claim construction order was issued. US7374326B2 remains fully enforceable against third parties, including Amazon LED sellers not named in case 1:23-cv-15551.
The stipulation names a subset of originally-named defendants — including Shenzhen Oulai, Shenzhen Ruihe, Shenzhenshi Abeitong, and Dong Jun Kun dba LETIANPAI. Defendants not appearing in the stipulation may have been separately resolved through default judgment, individual settlement, or other procedural mechanisms not reflected in this single document.
Schedule A cases name multiple anonymous defendants — typically identified only by online marketplace store IDs — in a single complaint. N.D. Illinois is a favoured venue because of its efficient handling of TRO applications, asset freeze orders, and multi-defendant IP cases targeting e-commerce sellers. The model is widely used against Amazon marketplace sellers of consumer goods.
The public record does not disclose any financial consideration. The stipulation states only that parties bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. However, a with-prejudice dismissal entered after 331 days of active litigation is consistent with a confidential negotiated resolution — the specific terms, if any, are not publicly available.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.