Lighted Hat Patent Dispute Ends in Joint Dismissal: Key IP Insights

Introduction

A patent infringement dispute over lighted hats concluded with a joint voluntary dismissal — an outcome that carries instructive lessons for IP professionals navigating cross-border patent assertions in the consumer accessories market. Filed on June 5, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Dongguan Kaiju Electronic Technology Co. Ltd. et al. v. Waters Industries, Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:24-cv-04682) centered on alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. US11478035B2, covering illuminated headwear technology.

The case pitted three Chinese technology and textile companies against U.S.-based Waters Industries, Inc. and Panther Vision LLC — both established players in the lighted apparel accessories segment. After 454 days of litigation, the parties jointly dismissed all claims with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own costs and fees. No damages were awarded and no injunctive relief was granted.

For patent attorneys, IP managers, and R&D leaders in the wearable electronics and accessories space, this case illustrates the strategic calculus behind early resolution in multi-party patent disputes involving competing Amazon marketplace products.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

The asserted patent, **U.S. Patent No. US11478035B2** (Application No. US16/934746), covers technology related to lighted hats — specifically illuminated headwear integrating lighting elements into hat structures. The patent’s claims govern the functional and structural integration of LED lighting systems into consumer hat products, a competitive and commercially active niche within wearable accessories.

The Accused Products

Defendants’ accused products were seven specific Amazon-listed lighted hat SKUs:

• • **ASIN Nos. B0CBBRLYJH, B0CBBCYMHM, B0CBBMN72X** (attributed to Waters Industries)
• • **ASIN Nos. B0CBPQN15V, B0BHYS8966, B0CDPXWYLH, B09WZW9V3H** (attributed to Panther Vision)

The Amazon-centric nature of the accused products signals that this dispute was partly a marketplace competition battle — a pattern increasingly common in consumer goods patent litigation involving Chinese and U.S. manufacturers.

Legal Representation

• • **Plaintiffs** were represented by attorney **Wei Wang** of **Glacier Law LLP**.
• • **Defendants** were represented by attorneys **Glenn Rice** and **Vance L. Liebman** of **Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn, Ltd.**

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case was filed in the Northern District of Illinois — a venue with an active patent docket and experienced IP judiciary. Chief Judge April M. Perry presided over the matter at the district court (first instance) level.

The 454-day duration from filing to dismissal suggests the case progressed through initial pleadings and likely early discovery before the parties reached resolution. The dismissal mechanism — a joint stipulation under **Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)** — is a consensual procedural tool requiring agreement from all appearing parties, indicating a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal.

Specific intermediate milestones such as claim construction hearings, summary judgment motions, or Markman rulings were not disclosed in available case records. The absence of a damages award or injunctive order confirms the case resolved entirely through party agreement before any merits adjudication.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case was dismissed with prejudice on September 2, 2025, pursuant to a joint stipulation filed by Shenzhen Zhonghe Textile Co. Ltd., ShenZhenShi LingKe WangLuoKeJi YouXianGongSi, and Waters Industries, Inc. Each party agreed to bear its own attorney fees and litigation costs. No monetary damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was issued.

Notably, the dismissal was filed by two of the three plaintiffs alongside one of the two defendants — the specific involvement of lead plaintiff Dongguan Kaiju and co-defendant Panther Vision LLC in the final stipulation was not separately detailed in available records.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The case was initiated as a patent infringement action — the most common basis for IP litigation in U.S. district courts. However, because the case resolved via joint dismissal before any court ruling on the merits, no judicial findings were made regarding:

• Validity of U.S. Patent No. US11478035B2
• Infringement of any asserted claims by the defendants
• Claim construction of the patent’s lighted headwear technology claims
• Damages calculation or willfulness

The “with prejudice” designation is legally significant: it bars the same plaintiffs from re-filing the same infringement claims against the same defendants in any U.S. federal court. This creates a permanent resolution of the specific dispute, even without a merits determination.

The mutual cost-bearing arrangement — where neither side recovered fees — reflects a true compromise posture. Under U.S. patent law (35 U.S.C. § 285), “exceptional cases” may warrant attorney fee shifting, but such awards are litigated; here, the parties bypassed that risk entirely.

Legal Significance

Because no court issued substantive rulings, US11478035B2 carries no district court precedent from this proceeding regarding its validity or enforceability. The patent remains available for assertion against other parties. Conversely, defendants received no invalidity finding that could be used offensively in subsequent matters.

For practitioners, joint dismissals with prejudice in patent cases often reflect one of several realities: a confidential licensing agreement, a design-around implemented by the defendant, commercial resolution tied to marketplace standing, or a mutual assessment that continued litigation costs outweighed strategic benefits.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Holders:

Asserting patents covering Amazon marketplace products in U.S. courts is a viable enforcement strategy for Chinese IP owners, but sustained litigation requires resource commitment and evidentiary preparation that may not always align with business objectives.

For Accused Infringers:

Early evaluation of design-around options for lighted hat product lines — specifically examining how claim elements of US11478035B2 are embodied in accused SKUs — remains a prudent risk-management step before and during litigation.

For R&D Teams:

The seven accused ASINs illustrate that specific product identification (down to individual SKUs) is standard in modern patent complaints. Detailed product documentation and design history files support infringement defense and freedom-to-operate analysis.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The lighted hat and illuminated headwear market occupies an increasingly competitive space within the broader wearable accessories and hands-free lighting industry. Companies like Panther Vision have built established U.S. brand positions, while Chinese manufacturers have entered the market aggressively through Amazon’s direct-to-consumer channels.

This case reflects a broader litigation trend: Chinese IP holders asserting U.S. patents against U.S. marketplace competitors. This reverses a historically common dynamic and signals the maturation of Chinese companies’ U.S. patent prosecution strategies.

The involvement of Glacier Law LLP — a firm that regularly represents Chinese entities in U.S. patent enforcement — further reflects organized, institutionalized patent assertion activity from Chinese manufacturers protecting their product lines and market share on U.S. platforms.

For companies in the consumer wearables, headwear accessories, and LED lighting integration spaces, this case underscores the need for proactive Freedom to Operate (FTO) analysis before launching products on Amazon and similar platforms, where SKU-level product identification makes infringement allegations straightforward to construct.

FAQ

What patent was involved in Dongguan Kaiju v. Waters Industries?

U.S. Patent No. US11478035B2 (Application No. US16/934746), covering lighted hat / illuminated headwear technology.

Why was the case dismissed?

The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs — indicating a negotiated resolution before any merits ruling.

How does this affect lighted hat patent litigation going forward?

Because no validity or infringement findings were issued, US11478035B2 remains assertable against other parties. Companies in the illuminated headwear market should conduct independent FTO analysis against this patent’s claims.

Research Resources

🔗 USPTO Patent Center – US11478035B2

🔗 PACER Case Lookup – 1:24-cv-04682

🔗 N.D. Illinois Court Information