Solawave Inc. v. Schedule A Defendants: Facial Wand Design Patent Case
Solawave Inc. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting design patent USD1024350S — covering a facial wand — against a group of unnamed online marketplace sellers. The case was voluntarily dismissed after just 56 days, with the public record silent on whether any resolution was reached.
Solawave’s Schedule A enforcement: a 56-day design patent campaign
On 4 December 2024, Solawave Inc. filed Case No. 1:24-cv-12453 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge April M. Perry. The complaint asserted design patent USD1024350S — application number 29/870678 — covering the ornamental appearance of a facial wand, a skincare device category in which Solawave competes commercially. The defendants were identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,’ a common enforcement structure used against anonymous e-commerce sellers.
The case closed on 29 January 2025 via a notice of voluntary dismissal acknowledged by the court pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The public docket records the dismissal but does not specify whether it was filed with or without prejudice. Rule 41(a)(1) permits dismissal without a court order before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment, suggesting the matter concluded at an early procedural stage.
At 56 days, the resolution is notably swift — consistent with Schedule A cases that often settle quickly or are abandoned after TRO/preliminary injunction proceedings secure commercial leverage. What drove the specific resolution here — whether through private settlement, enforcement success, or strategic withdrawal — is not apparent from the public record. The absence of defendant counsel on the docket further suggests many named sellers may not have appeared.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 56 days
56 days — resolved well under the typical 12–24 month district court patent lifecycle
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 filing means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal: what it means
Under Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court’s acknowledgment here confirms the procedural requirements were met. Critically, the notice does not specify ‘with’ or ‘without’ prejudice, leaving the door to re-filing legally ambiguous on the public record.
Early-stage procedural exitWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ bars Solawave from re-filing the same claims against the same defendants, functioning as a final judgment on the merits. A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves Solawave’s right to refile. The docket entry here does not specify either designation. Under Rule 41(a)(1), where no prejudice is stated, courts generally treat the dismissal as without prejudice — but this case’s record does not confirm that characterisation explicitly.
Prejudice designation unspecifiedSolawave exits without a public adverse ruling
Solawave secured no publicly recorded judgment, injunction, or damages award from this action. However, a voluntary dismissal carries no finding of non-infringement, meaning USD1024350S remains enforceable. Solawave retains the ability to pursue the same or different defendants in future actions, and the filing itself may have achieved commercial deterrence against the targeted sellers.
Patent remains enforceableSchedule A sellers: no public judgment, exposure persists
The unnamed Schedule A defendants received no court ruling in their favour. If the dismissal was without prejudice, they remain exposed to re-filing by Solawave. The absence of defendant counsel on the docket suggests many sellers did not formally contest the action. For e-commerce sellers of facial wands, USD1024350S remains a live litigation risk regardless of this case’s closure.
Re-filing risk unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Solawave Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Berel Yonathan Lakovitsky | Attorney | Counsel for Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin R. Gaudio | Attorney | Counsel for Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Tyler Joseph | Attorney | Counsel for Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lucas Allen Peterson | Attorney | Counsel for Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge April M. Perry | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s acknowledgment of the voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) confirms the action ended without any merits adjudication. The phrasing — ‘this case is dismissed’ without a prejudice qualifier — leaves the re-filing question open. For practitioners, the absence of defendant appearance on the docket and the 56-day duration together suggest the action functioned primarily as a commercial enforcement mechanism rather than a proceeding aimed at a full trial on the merits.
USD1024350S — Facial Wand Ornamental Design Patent
USD1024350S (application number 29/870678) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a facial wand — a handheld skincare device used for LED light therapy and/or microcurrent facial treatments. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect non-functional aesthetic features, and infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary purchaser would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design. The ‘USD’ prefix confirms this is a design patent, not a utility patent.
In the competitive LED facial wand market — where brand differentiation is heavily visual and direct-to-consumer marketing amplifies product appearance — a design patent like USD1024350S carries significant commercial weight. Solawave’s decision to assert this patent via a Schedule A action against multiple unnamed sellers signals active enforcement intent. Any competitor, contract manufacturer, or private-label seller whose facial wand product shares visual similarities with the patented design faces meaningful litigation exposure in the Northern District of Illinois.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1024350S?
Any company developing, importing, or selling a handheld facial wand — particularly LED therapy or microcurrent devices — should treat USD1024350S as a mandatory FTO checkpoint. Schedule A enforcement by Solawave demonstrates active monitoring of the marketplace. The ‘ordinary observer’ standard for design patent infringement means even independently developed products with visual similarity to the patented wand design could be vulnerable. This applies equally to Amazon, Shopify, and TikTok Shop sellers as to bricks-and-mortar distributors.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product teams and IP counsel to map USD1024350S against candidate product designs, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and surface related Solawave design filings that may cover adjacent product lines. Eureka’s visual patent similarity tools are particularly suited to design patent FTO workflows, where image-based comparison is more revealing than keyword search alone.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1024350S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A facial beauty device patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving design patent enforcement against Schedule A defendants in the Northern District of Illinois, particularly in the LED facial device and skincare technology space.
What this case signals for the beauty device IP landscape
Solawave’s Schedule A enforcement action reflects a broader pattern of design patent assertions targeting online sellers of skincare devices.
Schedule A actions are enforcement tools, not always trial vehicles
The 56-day lifespan and voluntary dismissal are consistent with Schedule A cases used primarily to obtain TROs, freeze marketplace accounts, and apply commercial pressure. Patent holders in the beauty device space increasingly deploy design patents in this manner — resolution often occurs off-docket, making the public record an incomplete picture of enforcement outcomes.
Design patents are potent weapons in the facial beauty device category
USD1024350S covers the ornamental design of a facial wand — a product category with high visual differentiation and strong consumer brand recognition. Design patent infringement requires only substantial similarity in appearance, setting a lower evidentiary bar than utility patent assertions. Competitors and private-label sellers in the LED facial wand space should treat active design patents as immediate FTO concerns.
Solawave v Partnerships — key questions answered
USD1024350S (App. No. 29/870678) is a U.S. design patent held by Solawave Inc. protecting the ornamental appearance of a facial wand skincare device. It was the sole patent asserted in Case No. 1:24-cv-12453 filed in the Northern District of Illinois in December 2024.
The case was closed on 29 January 2025 via a voluntary dismissal notice filed under Rule 41(a)(1). The public record does not disclose the reason for dismissal — possibilities include private settlement, enforcement leverage achieved via TRO, or strategic withdrawal. No defendant counsel appeared on the docket.
The court’s dismissal order does not specify with or without prejudice. Under Rule 41(a)(1), a voluntary dismissal filed before the defendant answers is generally treated as without prejudice unless otherwise stated, but the public record in this case does not confirm that characterisation explicitly.
Schedule A defendants are unnamed sellers identified in a sealed or separately filed schedule — a standard enforcement mechanism in N.D. Illinois used to target multiple anonymous e-commerce marketplace sellers simultaneously. The structure allows plaintiffs to file a single action against many defendants, often seeking ex parte temporary restraining orders to freeze accounts.
No. Voluntary dismissal of this litigation has no effect on the validity or enforceability of USD1024350S. The patent remains in force. Solawave retains full rights to assert it in future actions, and the dismissal includes no finding of non-infringement or invalidity. Sellers of competing facial wand products should continue to treat this design patent as an active enforcement risk.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.