Pinchot v. Cooledge Lighting: LED Tile Patent Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
Inventor Mark Pinchot filed suit against Cooledge Lighting in Massachusetts, asserting two patents covering LED TILE acoustic lighting technology against Cooledge’s TILE Acoustic and TILE Tunable White product lines. The case closed after just 151 days when Pinchot voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), leaving the door open to future litigation.
Early voluntary exit leaves Cooledge Lighting exposed to re-suit
On 31 May 2024, inventor Mark Pinchot filed a patent infringement action against Cooledge Lighting, Inc. in the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:24-cv-11436), asserting US10215387B2 and US10779478B2. Both patents cover LED-based TILE lighting technology, and the accused products include Cooledge’s TILE Acoustic line and the acoustic versions of its TILE Tunable White interior lighting systems — products prominently featured in the company’s commercial portfolio.
The action terminated on 29 October 2024 — just 151 days after filing — when Pinchot filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This mechanism allows a plaintiff to dismiss before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment, requiring no court order. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Pinchot retains the right to refile the same claims against the same defendant, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
The brevity of the case — closing before any substantive court ruling — suggests the dismissal may reflect ongoing licensing negotiations, a strategic pause to gather additional evidence, or a decision to refile in a different venue or with refined claim mapping. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement or licensing agreement was reached. What is clear is that Cooledge Lighting faces unresolved patent exposure on its TILE Acoustic products unless a private resolution was achieved outside the court record.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 151 days
151 days — resolved before discovery or claim construction in most district courts
Dismissed without prejudice: what Rule 41 exit means for each party
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to exit before answer
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal takes effect immediately upon filing the notice. Critically, ‘without prejudice’ means no judgment on the merits is entered — the case disappears from the docket but the legal claims survive for potential refiling.
No merits adjudicationPinchot preserves all claims — but why step back?
A without-prejudice dismissal leaves Pinchot in the same legal position he was in before filing. His two patents remain enforceable, the accused Cooledge products remain in the market, and he may refile within the limitations period. Common reasons for such an early exit include settlement discussions, a decision to consolidate claim mapping, or a strategic choice to refile with stronger infringement evidence. The public record does not confirm which applies here.
Refiling rights intactCooledge escapes this round — but faces lingering exposure
Cooledge Lighting avoids an adjudication and any injunction or damages award in this action. However, a dismissal without prejudice provides no immunity from future suit. Cooledge cannot claim res judicata or issue preclusion against the same patents asserted here. Unless a confidential licensing agreement or covenant not to sue was secured, Cooledge’s TILE Acoustic and Tunable White product lines remain under potential threat from Pinchot’s patent portfolio.
No preclusion shield obtainedLED architectural lighting: IP uncertainty persists post-dismissal
For competitors and buyers in the LED architectural tile lighting sector, this outcome signals active patent enforcement activity around acoustic-integrated tile lighting systems. The two asserted patents — both granted and currently listed as active — represent a real constraint on product design freedom. Companies developing or sourcing flexible LED tile products with acoustic functionality should treat this dismissal as a pause, not a clearance, and consider formal FTO analysis against US10215387B2 and US10779478B2.
Sector risk remains elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Mark Pinchot | Individual | Independent inventor — holder of US10215387B2 and US10779478B2 covering LED TILE lightingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cooledge Lighting, Inc. | Company | Cooledge Lighting, Inc. — developer of flexible LED TILE interior and acoustic lighting systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin M. Stern | Attorney | Counsel for Mark PinchotSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark C. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Mark PinchotSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sarah Louise Boone | Attorney | Counsel for Mark PinchotSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP | Law Firm | Representing Mark PinchotSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Renner Otto Boisselle & Sklar LLP | Law Firm | Representing Mark PinchotSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua M. Dalton | Attorney | Counsel for Cooledge Lighting, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cooledge Lighting, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge William G. Young | Judge | Massachusetts District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly states the action is dismissed ‘without prejudice,’ encompassing all asserted claims against Cooledge Lighting. The without-prejudice qualifier is legally significant: it forecloses any argument by Cooledge that the matter has been finally resolved on its merits. No findings were made regarding infringement, validity, or claim scope of US10215387B2 or US10779478B2. Both patents retain their full presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282, and Cooledge holds no estoppel protection against future assertion of these claims.
US10215387B2 & US10779478B2 — LED TILE acoustic lighting systems
US10215387B2 (filed under application US15/811660) and US10779478B2 (filed under US16/284889) are granted US utility patents covering LED-based tile lighting technology, including acoustic-integrated configurations. The patents’ application numbers and grant sequence suggest a continuation or family relationship, with the second patent likely building on claims established in the first. Both remain active grants and carry the full statutory presumption of validity. The technology domain — flexible or modular LED tiles with acoustic integration — sits at the intersection of architectural lighting and acoustic panel design, a commercially active product category.
Cooledge Lighting’s TILE Acoustic and TILE Tunable White product lines are precisely the commercial product category these patents appear to target. For competitors in the LED architectural lighting market — including manufacturers of modular ceiling systems, acoustic baffles with integrated illumination, and flexible LED substrate products — these two patents represent a potential claim perimeter that warrants monitoring. The fact that an individual inventor holds granted patents in this specific product niche, and has already initiated enforcement action, suggests the portfolio is being actively managed and may be asserted more broadly.
Should your LED tile product line be cleared against US10215387B2?
Any company developing, sourcing, or distributing LED tile lighting products with acoustic panel integration — or tunable white flexible tile systems — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US10215387B2 and US10779478B2 before expanding product lines or entering new markets. The accused Cooledge products suggest the claims may cover fundamental design features of tile-format LED luminaires combined with acoustic substrates. A clearance opinion now is substantially cheaper than defending an infringement action later.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of both patents against your product specifications, surface prior art that may bear on validity, and identify design-around options if specific claim elements present risk. Eureka also tracks the full patent family — including any continuations or divisionals filed from these applications — so your FTO analysis covers the complete scope of Pinchot’s potential claim coverage, not just the two patents asserted in this action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10215387B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LED lighting patent cases in Massachusetts and beyond
Explore related patent infringement actions involving LED architectural lighting and tile luminaire technology litigated in the District of Massachusetts and federal courts nationwide.
What this case signals for the LED architectural lighting IP landscape
An early voluntary dismissal without prejudice rarely means the matter is resolved — it often marks a strategic repositioning before re-engagement.
Without-prejudice dismissal is not a safe harbour for Cooledge
No court ruling, no consent judgment, and no public licence means Cooledge Lighting’s TILE Acoustic products remain exposed to the same two patents. IP teams monitoring this sector should treat the dismissal as a temporary ceasefire rather than a definitive clearance. Continued product sales without a confirmed licence creates measurable ongoing risk.
Inventor-plaintiff enforcement is a growing pattern in lighting IP
Individual inventors asserting granted patents against established lighting manufacturers — particularly in the LED architectural segment — represent an enforcement category that often precedes broader licensing campaigns. Pinchot’s use of Nutter McClennen and Renner Otto (a specialist patent litigation firm) signals a structured enforcement strategy, not a casual dispute. Competitors in the same product category should audit exposure now.
Pinchot v Cooledge — key questions answered
Mark Pinchot filed a patent infringement action against Cooledge Lighting in the District of Massachusetts on 31 May 2024, asserting US10215387B2 and US10779478B2 against Cooledge’s TILE Acoustic and TILE Tunable White product lines. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff on 29 October 2024 after 151 days, with no merits ruling issued.
Pinchot asserted two US patents: US10215387B2 (application US15/811660) and US10779478B2 (application US16/284889). Both cover LED TILE lighting technology, including acoustic-integrated configurations. The accused products were Cooledge’s TILE Acoustic product line and the acoustic versions of its TILE Tunable White interior lighting systems.
A dismissal without prejudice means no judgment on the merits was entered. Cooledge Lighting cannot invoke res judicata or issue preclusion based on this dismissal. Pinchot retains full rights to refile the same infringement claims against the same products within the applicable statute of limitations. Unless a private settlement or licence was secured, Cooledge’s patent exposure from these two patents remains unresolved.
The case closed at 151 days, before any substantive court rulings. Common reasons for such an early voluntary Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal include: ongoing settlement or licensing negotiations that are not yet concluded, a strategic decision to refile with refined claim charts or in a different venue, or a need to gather additional infringement evidence. The public record does not disclose the specific reason, and no settlement terms are publicly available.
Yes. Both patents retain their full presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. The dismissal without prejudice had no effect on the legal status of either patent. No invalidity finding, disclaimer, or adverse claim construction was entered. Companies developing or selling LED acoustic tile lighting products should treat both patents as active enforcement instruments and conduct appropriate freedom-to-operate analysis.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.