Kortek v. Gosund: Four Smart Home Patents, 1,477 Days, Dismissed Without Prejudice
Australian IP holder Kortek Industries asserted four US patents covering smart plugs, wall sockets, power strips, switches, and LED lighting against Chinese manufacturer Shenzhen Gosund Technology before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas. After 1,477 days — over four years — Kortek voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice, leaving the door open to refile.
Four-Patent Smart Home Infringement Action Ends With No Merits Ruling
On 4 October 2021, Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd. — an Australian patent holding entity — filed suit against Shenzhen Gosund Technology Co., Ltd. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:21-cv-01027) before Judge Alan D. Albright. Kortek asserted four US patents — US10862313B2, US9590427B2, US10429869B2, and US9465377B2 — against a broad range of Gosund-branded smart home products, including smart plugs, wall sockets, power strips, switches, smart LED strip lights, and smart bulbs sold under the Gosund, TanTan, and Nitebird brands.
On 20 October 2025, Kortek filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), terminating the action without prejudice. Critically, this mechanism was available because Gosund had not served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal specifies that each party bears its own costs and expenses. A without-prejudice dismissal means no final judgment on the merits was entered, and Kortek retains the legal right to refile claims based on the same patents against Gosund in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
The case spanned over four years, which is notably long for an action that ends before the defendant even answers. The absence of any recorded defendant law firm or agent in the public record suggests Gosund may have not formally appeared, potentially complicating enforcement and service. What drove Kortek’s ultimate decision to dismiss — whether strategic, related to settlement discussions, licensing negotiations, or difficulties in enforcing judgment against a Chinese entity — remains unknown from the public record. The without-prejudice posture preserves Kortek’s litigation optionality across all four patents.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 1477 days
1,477 days — over 4 years in W.D. Tex. before voluntary dismissal
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): automatic right to dismiss before answer
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal takes effect automatically upon filing. Because Gosund had not served either, Kortek exercised this unilateral right. No judicial approval was required, and no merits ruling was issued.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: Kortek can refile — but the record is silent on why
A dismissal without prejudice means no final judgment on the merits was entered. Kortek is not barred from asserting the same four patents against Gosund again in future litigation. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement, licensing arrangement, or strategic pivot motivated the dismissal. The distinction matters: a with-prejudice dismissal would have extinguished Kortek’s claims permanently, but that is not what occurred here.
Refiling remains possibleGosund never formally answered — litigation pressure without adjudication
The public record shows no registered defendant agents or law firms and no filed answer or summary judgment motion from Gosund. This suggests Gosund may not have formally appeared in the US proceeding. While the case is now closed, Gosund faces continued patent exposure: the four asserted patents remain in force and Kortek retains the right to refile. Gosund’s smart home product lines remain potentially within the scope of Kortek’s patent portfolio.
No answer filedEach party bears own costs — no fee-shifting triggered
The dismissal notice explicitly provides that each party bears its own costs and expenses. No fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case) was sought or granted. This outcome is consistent with an early-stage voluntary dismissal where no substantive litigation had occurred. Neither party can claim a cost recovery advantage from this termination.
No fee awardFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd. | Company | Australian IoT patent holding entity — holder of US10862313B2, US9590427B2, US10429869B2, and US9465377B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | SHENZHEN GOSUND TECHNOLOGY Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer electronics manufacturer selling smart home devices under Gosund, TanTan, and Nitebird brandsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Erick Scott Robinson | Attorney | Counsel for Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Patrick M. Dunn | Attorney | Counsel for Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Brown Rudnick LLP | Law Firm | Representing Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a self-executing mechanism available only before the defendant answers or moves for summary judgment. No court order was required and none was issued. The phrasing ‘without prejudice’ is legally significant: it is not merely procedural boilerplate but a deliberate preservation of Kortek’s right to refile. The cost-bearing clause is standard for Rule 41(a)(1) dismissals and does not constitute a finding of litigation misconduct by either party. The public record provides no basis to determine whether a private resolution was reached.
US10862313B2, US9590427B2, US10429869B2, US9465377B2 — Smart Home IoT Power and Lighting Control
The four asserted patents — US10862313B2 (application US15/925767), US9590427B2 (US14/272317), US10429869B2 (US15/287739), and US9465377B2 (US13/985549) — collectively span smart home IoT power and lighting control technology. The portfolio appears to address wireless network-connected power devices including smart plugs, wall sockets, multi-outlet strips, switches, and LED lighting systems. The sequential application numbers suggest a prosecution strategy designed to build layered claim coverage across the smart home power stack.
The strategic significance of this four-patent portfolio lies in its breadth across product categories that are now mass-market commodities manufactured primarily in China and sold on Amazon and similar platforms. Any company offering WiFi-controlled plugs, switches, or LED bulbs under any brand — including OEM and white-label arrangements — may face exposure if these patents survive and Kortek refiles. The without-prejudice dismissal means the portfolio’s enforceability has never been tested in litigation, leaving its validity and infringement scope formally undetermined.
Should you run an FTO against US10862313B2 and the Kortek smart home portfolio?
Any R&D team or product manager developing WiFi-controlled smart plugs, wall sockets, smart switches, smart power strips, or LED smart lighting for the US market should treat this portfolio as a live risk. The without-prejudice dismissal means Kortek has not exhausted its enforcement rights. The broad product list targeted — spanning over 30 SKUs from Gosund alone — signals a wide claim interpretation strategy. Companies selling similar products on US e-commerce channels are potential future targets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map claim language across all four Kortek patents against your specific product architecture, flag prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and benchmark your exposure against the claims asserted in this case. Given that no court has ruled on validity or infringement, a proactive FTO analysis is the most reliable way to quantify your risk before commercialising smart home power or lighting products in the US.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10862313B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Smart Home IoT Patent Cases in W.D. Texas and Related Courts
Cases involving WiFi-connected smart plug, switch, and LED lighting patents litigated in the Western District of Texas before Judge Albright and comparable IoT enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the smart home IoT patent enforcement landscape
A four-year case ending with no merits ruling raises pointed questions about cross-border IP enforcement against Chinese smart home manufacturers.
Without-prejudice dismissal preserves Kortek’s enforcement optionality across all four patents
All four patents — US10862313B2, US9590427B2, US10429869B2, and US9465377B2 — remain active and unadjudicated. Kortek can refile in W.D. Tex. or another venue. Competitors and licensees in the smart plug, smart switch, and LED lighting space should treat these patents as live enforcement risks, not resolved ones.
Enforcing US patents against non-appearing Chinese defendants is a structural challenge
The absence of any recorded Gosund legal representation suggests the defendant may not have formally appeared. This is a recurring pattern in cases involving Chinese consumer electronics manufacturers. IP holders must weigh whether to pursue default judgment, US import action at the ITC, or seek licensing resolution — US district court judgments against non-appearing foreign entities can be difficult to monetise.
Kortek v SHENZHEN — key questions answered
Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd. filed suit against Shenzhen Gosund Technology Co., Ltd. in the Western District of Texas on 4 October 2021, asserting four US patents covering smart plugs, sockets, power strips, switches, and LED lighting. On 20 October 2025, Kortek filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), as Gosund had not served an answer. Each party bears its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
A without-prejudice dismissal means no final judgment was entered on the merits. All four patents — US10862313B2, US9590427B2, US10429869B2, and US9465377B2 — remain valid and unadjudicated. Kortek retains the legal right to refile infringement claims based on these patents against Gosund or other defendants in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
Kortek asserted four US patents: US10862313B2 (application US15/925767), US9590427B2 (application US14/272317), US10429869B2 (application US15/287739), and US9465377B2 (application US13/985549). These patents collectively cover smart home IoT power and lighting control technology, including smart plugs, wall sockets, power strips, switches, and LED smart lighting devices.
The complaint targeted an extensive product list sold under the Gosund, TanTan, and Nitebird brands, including smart plugs (SP111, SP112, SP211, UP111, WP series), smart wall sockets, smart power strips (WP9), smart switches (SW1, SW2, SW5, SW6, SW8), smart LED strip lights (SL1–SL3), and smart bulbs (LB1, LB3, WB3-2, WB4, WB5), among others. Over 30 individual SKUs were identified.
Judge Alan D. Albright of the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas was assigned to this case. During the period this case was filed (2021), Judge Albright’s Waco docket was one of the most popular patent litigation venues in the US due to its plaintiff-favourable reputation, relatively fast scheduling orders, and Judge Albright’s expressed willingness to try patent cases. Many NPE and patent holding company plaintiffs selected this forum strategically during this period.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.