Levitation Arts v. BKST Brand Management: Patent Dispute Over Levitating Consumer Products
Levitation Arts, Inc. brought a patent infringement action against BKST Brand Management and affiliated entities in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting US7505243B2 over levitating lamp and planter products. After 476 days of litigation, the parties jointly dismissed all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each side absorbing its own legal costs.
Levitation patent dispute ends in mutual walk-away after 16 months
On July 26, 2023, Levitation Arts, Inc. filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:23-cv-04865) against BKST Brand Management, LLC, BKST Brand Holdings, LLC, and BKST BSA Group, LLC. The suit centred on US7505243B2, a patent directed to magnetic levitation technology as embodied in Levitation Arts’ flagship Levitating Lamp and LevitatePro Levitating Planter products. Judge Sara L. Ellis presided over the matter.
The case concluded on November 13, 2024, when both sides jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The dismissal extinguished Levitation Arts’ infringement claims and BKST’s counterclaims simultaneously, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees. A with-prejudice dismissal is final — Levitation Arts cannot re-assert the same claims against the BKST entities on the same patent.
The 476-day duration, combined with the mutual cost-bearing arrangement and simultaneous extinguishment of both claims and counterclaims, is consistent with a negotiated resolution — potentially a licensing arrangement or commercial agreement — reached before trial. The precise financial or licensing terms, if any, are not disclosed in the public record. What drove BKST to resolve rather than contest the validity of US7505243B2 on the merits remains unknown from publicly available filings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 476 days
476 days — longer than the median N.D. Ill. patent case dismissal timeline, suggesting substantive negotiation preceded settlement
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): joint stipulated dismissal explained
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may dismiss an action by filing a signed stipulation. Here, both Levitation Arts and all three BKST entities signed, making dismissal effective upon filing — no court order was required. The with-prejudice designation means the court retains no jurisdiction and the dismissed claims are permanently barred from re-litigation between these specific parties.
Bilateral, final, no court order neededClaims and counterclaims dismissed simultaneously
The stipulation explicitly extinguished both Levitation Arts’ infringement claims and BKST’s counterclaims. This bilateral structure is significant: it suggests BKST had asserted affirmative defences or invalidity counterclaims that were also resolved as part of the same agreement. Dismissal with prejudice on both sides indicates a clean-break resolution — neither party retains any live claim against the other from this action.
Claims + counterclaims both extinguishedLevitation Arts cannot re-file these claims against BKST
A with-prejudice dismissal acts as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Levitation Arts cannot re-assert US7505243B2 infringement claims against the BKST entities on the same accused products. If a licensing or commercial agreement underlies this resolution, enforcement of that agreement would require a separate breach-of-contract action, not revival of this patent suit.
Final bar on re-litigationOutcome consistent with a private commercial resolution
The combination of 476 days of litigation, mutual cost-bearing (neither side ‘won’ on costs), and simultaneous dismissal of all claims is a pattern typically associated with a negotiated settlement or licensing agreement. Competitors in the magnetic levitation consumer goods space should note that US7505243B2 was not adjudicated invalid — it remains an enforceable patent that could be asserted against other market participants.
Patent remains valid and enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Levitation Arts, Inc. | Company | Magnetic levitation consumer goods company — holder of US7505243B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | BKST Brand Management, LLC | Company | BKST Brand Management, LLC and affiliated entities — sellers of competing levitating consumer productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | BKST Brand Holdings, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | BKST BSA Group, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kyle David Wallenberg | Attorney | Counsel for Levitation Arts, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew G. McAndrews | Attorney | Counsel for Levitation Arts, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Levitation Arts, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Niro McAndrews LLC | Law Firm | Representing Levitation Arts, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David W. Higer | Attorney | Counsel for BKST Brand Management, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael D. Karson | Attorney | Counsel for BKST Brand Management, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winstead PC | Law Firm | Representing BKST Brand Management, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sara L. Ellis | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and specifies dismissal ‘with prejudice’ as to both Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ counterclaims — an unusually explicit bilateral structure. The mutual cost-bearing provision (each party bears its own fees) reinforces that this was a negotiated exit rather than a capitulation by either side. No merits findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope were entered, leaving US7505243B2 legally intact and fully enforceable against third parties outside this specific dispute.
US7505243B2 — Magnetic Levitation Consumer Products Technology
US7505243B2 (application number US11/958954) covers technology underlying magnetic levitation consumer products, including decorative and functional items such as levitating lamps and planters. The patent protects the electromagnetic suspension mechanisms that allow objects to float stably without physical support. Patents of this type typically claim specific configurations of electromagnets, sensors, and control circuitry that maintain stable levitation — a technically non-trivial engineering problem that limits design-around options for competitors.
In the rapidly growing market for novelty and smart home decorative products, a magnetic levitation patent with broad claim coverage can function as a significant barrier to entry. Levitation Arts asserted this patent against BKST’s competing levitating product lines, suggesting the patent holder views its claims as covering commercially relevant product configurations beyond its own branded goods. Competing brands sourcing OEM levitating products — particularly from manufacturers supplying multiple brands — face meaningful FTO exposure if their products incorporate similar electromagnetic suspension architectures.
Should your levitating product line carry an FTO analysis against US7505243B2?
Any company designing, importing, or distributing magnetic levitation consumer products in the U.S. market — including levitating lamps, planters, speakers, or decorative objects — should assess freedom-to-operate against US7505243B2. This case demonstrates that Levitation Arts is willing to assert the patent against branded competitors. The patent was not invalidated in this proceeding, meaning its claims remain enforceable. OEM-sourced levitating products are particularly vulnerable if the underlying electromagnetic suspension design was not independently cleared.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US7505243B2 against your specific product architecture — identifying which claims present risk, what prior art exists that may narrow enforceability, and whether design-around options are technically viable. Eureka can also surface related continuation or family patents that Levitation Arts may hold, giving R&D and legal teams a complete picture of the portfolio risk before product launch or market expansion.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7505243B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar magnetic levitation and decorative consumer goods patent cases
Patent infringement disputes over magnetic levitation and novelty consumer products in U.S. district courts, with comparable enforcement and dismissal patterns.
What this case signals for the magnetic levitation consumer products IP landscape
US7505243B2 survived this litigation without a validity ruling, leaving it as an active enforcement tool in the levitating goods market.
US7505243B2 was never adjudicated invalid — enforcement risk persists
The with-prejudice dismissal ended this specific dispute but produced no ruling on the validity or scope of US7505243B2. Companies selling magnetic levitation consumer products — lamps, planters, speakers, or similar decorative goods — should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk. The absence of an invalidity ruling means Levitation Arts retains full enforcement rights against third parties.
Mutual cost-bearing signals leverage was roughly balanced at resolution
When both parties absorb their own costs in a with-prejudice dismissal, it typically suggests neither side held decisive procedural or merits leverage at the point of resolution. For defendants in similar magnetic levitation cases, this pattern suggests that asserting counterclaims early — as BKST appears to have done — may create negotiating parity even against an established patent holder.
Levitation v BKST — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on November 13, 2024, under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Both Levitation Arts’ infringement claims and BKST’s counterclaims were extinguished simultaneously, with each party bearing its own costs and attorney fees. No merits ruling on infringement or patent validity was issued.
Levitation Arts asserted US7505243B2 (application US11/958954), a patent covering magnetic levitation technology as embodied in its Levitating Lamp and LevitatePro Levitating Planter products. The patent protects electromagnetic suspension systems that enable objects to float stably, and it was not adjudicated invalid during these proceedings.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal bars Levitation Arts from re-asserting the same claims against the specific BKST entities over the same accused products. However, US7505243B2 remains fully enforceable against other third parties. The patent was not invalidated, so the enforcement risk to other market participants is unchanged.
When both parties absorb their own legal costs in a with-prejudice dismissal, it is consistent with a negotiated resolution — such as a licensing agreement or commercial settlement — rather than a unilateral capitulation. The specific terms of any underlying agreement are not disclosed in the public record. Neither outcome nor cost allocation confirms which party held stronger merits.
Levitation Arts was represented by McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. and Niro McAndrews LLC, with attorneys Kyle David Wallenberg and Matthew G. McAndrews appearing for the plaintiff. BKST Brand Management and its affiliated entities were represented by Winstead PC, with David W. Higer and Michael D. Karson as counsel for the defendants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.