Shenzhen Yuanyun v. Waters Industries: Lighted Hats Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
A coalition of eleven Chinese-based plaintiffs led by Shenzhen Yuanyun Acoustic Technology Co. Ltd brought a patent infringement action against Waters Industries, Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting US11478035B2 covering lighted hat technology. The case closed with prejudice after 430 days, following a joint stipulation of dismissal — suggesting a negotiated resolution outside the public record.
Multi-plaintiff lighted hat patent action ends in stipulated dismissal with prejudice
Filed on 1 July 2024 before Judge Martha M. Pacold in the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:24-cv-05548 involves an infringement action brought by Shenzhen Yuanyun Acoustic Technology Co. Ltd alongside ten co-plaintiffs — predominantly China-based e-commerce and trading entities — against Waters Industries, Inc. The asserted patent, US11478035B2 (application no. US16/934746), covers lighted hats with integrated illumination features, a consumer product category with significant online retail exposure.
The case closed on 4 September 2025 after the court received the parties’ stipulation of dismissal at docket entry 36. Judge Pacold entered dismissal with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs are permanently barred from reasserting the same patent claims against Waters Industries on the same grounds. A dismissal with prejudice entered on stipulation — rather than after contested motion practice — is consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing arrangement, though no such terms have been disclosed in the public record.
The 430-day duration is notable given that the case appears to have resolved without a merits ruling, suggesting substantive negotiations occurred in parallel with litigation. The multi-plaintiff structure — assembling over ten entities under one action — is a pattern commonly associated with coordinated enforcement campaigns by Chinese IP holders targeting U.S. e-commerce-facing defendants. What drove the final resolution, including any financial terms, licensing grant, or product design changes, remains unknown from the public docket.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 430 days
430 days to close — above the median for N.D. Illinois patent cases resolved by stipulated dismissal
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice forecloses future refiling on same claims
A dismissal with prejudice entered on the parties’ stipulation is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Unlike a voluntary dismissal without prejudice — which preserves the right to refile — this outcome permanently extinguishes the plaintiffs’ ability to reassert US11478035B2 against Waters Industries on the same facts. The court’s role is ministerial: it gives effect to the parties’ agreement rather than adjudicating the underlying merits.
Final on the meritsPlaintiffs permanently surrender right to re-litigate against Waters Industries
By stipulating to dismissal with prejudice, the plaintiff coalition relinquishes any future infringement claim under US11478035B2 against Waters Industries on the accused lighted hat products. This is a meaningful concession unless offset by undisclosed settlement consideration — such as a lump-sum payment, ongoing royalty, or product redesign commitment — which is the typical commercial rationale for accepting a with-prejudice dismissal rather than a without-prejudice exit.
Likely settledWaters Industries secures permanent protection from these specific claims
Waters Industries benefits from a permanent bar against these plaintiffs reasserting the same patent claims on the same accused products. If the dismissal reflects a settlement, the defendant likely negotiated closure in exchange for some consideration. If driven by the defendant’s legal position, the with-prejudice result provides commercial certainty and removes the overhang of litigation risk, though the underlying patent US11478035B2 remains valid and enforceable against other parties.
Claims extinguishedPatent remains live: other lighted hat sellers remain exposed
The dismissal resolves only this bilateral dispute. US11478035B2 remains an issued, enforceable patent and the plaintiff coalition retains standing to pursue infringement claims against other market participants selling lighted hats. Given the multi-entity plaintiff structure — which suggests a coordinated enforcement approach — other U.S. importers, distributors, and online retailers of illuminated headwear should treat this outcome as a signal that enforcement activity in this product category may continue.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Yuanyun Acoustic Technology Co. Ltd | Company | Coalition of Chinese consumer electronics and e-commerce entities — holders of US11478035B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Dongguan Yangjiahong E-Commerce Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Dongguan Yixingang E-Commerce Co., Ltd | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Huangshi Caique Department Store Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Qianjiang Xinru Printing Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Shenzhen Defeier Trade Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Shenzhen Jiupengchuangxing E-Commerce Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Shenzhen Minghuo Innovation Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Shenzhen Qunying Weiye Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Xiamen Zhongda Qihang Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Tegra Medical, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Waters Industries, Inc | Company | Waters Industries, Inc. — U.S.-based company accused of infringing lighted hat patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dandan Pan | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Yuanyun Acoustic Technology Co. LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tao Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Yuanyun Acoustic Technology Co. LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wei Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Yuanyun Acoustic Technology Co. LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Xionghui Murong | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Yuanyun Acoustic Technology Co. LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Glacier Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Yuanyun Acoustic Technology Co. LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Glenn Rice | Attorney | Counsel for Waters Industries, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Vance L. Liebman | Attorney | Counsel for Waters Industries, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Waters Industries, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Martha M. Pacold | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s dismissal language — entered pursuant to the parties’ stipulation — is deliberately terse, recording only procedural closure rather than any merits finding. The ‘with prejudice’ designation carries significant legal weight: it bars the plaintiff coalition from bringing the same patent claims against Waters Industries in any future proceeding. The absence of any damages award, injunction, or invalidity ruling means the patent’s legal validity and scope were never tested by the court, preserving both the patent’s enforceability and Waters Industries’ freedom from future suit on these specific claims.
US11478035B2 — Integrated illumination technology for lighted hats
US11478035B2, filed under application number US16/934746, protects technology relating to hats incorporating integrated lighting elements — a product category that sits at the intersection of wearable accessories and functional LED consumer electronics. The patent’s issuance number (11,478,035) places it in a relatively recent grant cohort, suggesting a post-2015 application timeline consistent with the maturation of low-power LED and flexible circuit miniaturisation that made illuminated wearables commercially viable at mass-market price points.
From a competitive standpoint, US11478035B2 represents an enforcement asset in a fragmented market dominated by Chinese manufacturers supplying U.S. e-commerce platforms. Patents in this space often cover structural or circuit integration innovations that are difficult to design around without visible product changes, increasing their leverage value in licensing discussions. The plaintiff group’s multi-entity structure suggests the patent may underpin a broader commercial portfolio strategy targeting the U.S. import channel for illuminated accessories.
Should your product team run an FTO against US11478035B2?
Any company importing, distributing, or retailing lighted hats or illuminated headwear in the United States should treat US11478035B2 as a live enforcement risk. The patent survived this litigation without any invalidation ruling, and the plaintiff group’s coordinated enforcement history suggests this is not a dormant asset. Product teams sourcing illuminated hat designs from Chinese suppliers should confirm whether their specific structural or circuit integration configurations fall outside the issued claim boundaries.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US11478035B2 against your product specifications, identify relevant prior art that could support an invalidity challenge, and surface any continuations or related applications that may extend the patent family’s coverage. Running this analysis before receiving a demand letter — rather than after — gives your legal and commercial teams the lead time to pivot design, seek a license on favourable terms, or build an invalidity record.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11478035B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar lighted hat and illuminated accessory patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving consumer illuminated accessory patents enforced in N.D. Illinois and comparable U.S. district courts by Chinese-based patent holders against U.S. importers and retailers.
What this case signals for the lighted hat and illuminated apparel IP landscape
A coordinated multi-plaintiff action resolved in 430 days signals active enforcement intent in the consumer illuminated accessories space.
Multi-plaintiff structures amplify enforcement pressure on U.S. defendants
Assembling eleven entities as co-plaintiffs is a litigation strategy designed to demonstrate the breadth of a patent holder’s commercial ecosystem and complicate defendant cost-benefit calculations. U.S. importers and retailers of lighted hats or illuminated accessories should assess whether their supply chains intersect with the technology covered by US11478035B2 before receiving a demand letter.
Dismissal with prejudice is not a patent death — third-party risk persists
Waters Industries has resolution, but US11478035B2 is intact. Any competitor or online marketplace seller operating in the lighted hat category — particularly those sourcing from Chinese manufacturers — should conduct FTO analysis. The patent’s application date and claim scope determine whether current product designs clear the issued claims, regardless of how this bilateral dispute concluded.
Shenzhen v Waters — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice following a joint stipulation of dismissal filed by both parties. Filed on 1 July 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois, the action alleged infringement of US11478035B2 covering lighted hats. The dismissal, entered by Judge Pacold on 4 September 2025, permanently bars the plaintiffs from refiling the same claims against Waters Industries.
US11478035B2 (application US16/934746) covers lighted hat technology incorporating integrated illumination elements. It was asserted against Waters Industries in connection with that company’s lighted hat products. The patent remains issued and enforceable following the case’s resolution without any invalidity ruling.
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice permanently extinguishes the plaintiff’s right to assert the same patent claims against the same defendant on the same accused products. It is a final adjudication for res judicata purposes. However, the patent itself — US11478035B2 — remains valid and enforceable against all other parties. Only Waters Industries receives permanent protection from these specific plaintiffs on these specific claims.
The eleven co-plaintiffs are predominantly Chinese e-commerce and trading entities. This multi-plaintiff structure is consistent with coordinated patent enforcement campaigns where a lead patent holder consolidates related commercial entities into a single action to demonstrate market presence, share litigation costs, and amplify pressure on the defendant. The structure does not necessarily indicate fractional ownership of the patent.
No. The dismissal binds only the named parties — the plaintiff coalition and Waters Industries. US11478035B2 remains fully enforceable against any other manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer of lighted hats. Other market participants should conduct their own freedom-to-operate analysis rather than assuming protection from this case’s outcome.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.