Solawave Inc. v. Schedule A Defendants: Design Patent Dispute Over Light Therapy Skincare Devices
Solawave Inc., maker of light therapy facial wands and skincare devices, filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against unnamed e-commerce defendants over design patent USD1024350S. The case was voluntarily dismissed after just 107 days — a timeline consistent with early resolution or targeted enforcement against a single defendant.
Solawave targets e-commerce sellers in Schedule A design patent action
On 7 October 2024, Solawave Inc. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-09635) against an unnamed group of defendants identified on a Schedule A — a common litigation structure used to pursue multiple e-commerce marketplace sellers in a single action. The asserted patent, USD1024350S (application no. US29/870678), is a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a light therapy face mask or facial wand-style skincare device. Products at issue included topical serums, facial wands, hydrating sheet masks, light therapy face masks, moisturizers, and pimple treatment devices.
The case was terminated on 22 January 2025 following a voluntary dismissal filed by Solawave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), naming a single defendant — cosmetics_store — as the dismissed party. The docket records the basis of termination as ‘Case Dismissed,’ but the Rule 41(a)(1) notice does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The public record is therefore silent on whether Solawave retains the right to re-file against this specific defendant.
At 107 days from filing to closure, the resolution falls well inside the typical lifespan of Schedule A enforcement campaigns, which frequently conclude through early settlement or targeted dismissal once a defendant complies or cannot be served. The dismissal of only ‘cosmetics_store’ suggests this action may have involved a broader defendant list managed in parallel or resolved piecemeal. What drove the final resolution — whether payment, product delisting, or a lapse in service — is not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 107 days
107 days — resolved faster than the N.D. Illinois median for patent infringement actions
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal: plaintiff-driven, no court approval needed
A Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal is filed unilaterally by the plaintiff before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. It requires no court order and takes effect immediately upon filing. This makes it the most procedurally lightweight exit available — and is frequently deployed in Schedule A campaigns once a specific defendant has settled, complied, or become unreachable.
Plaintiff-initiated exitWith or without prejudice? The record does not say
Under Rule 41(a)(1), a first voluntary dismissal is presumed without prejudice unless the notice states otherwise — meaning Solawave could theoretically re-file against cosmetics_store. However, the filed notice does not explicitly specify either term, and the docket entry simply records ‘Case Dismissed.’ Until further filings clarify this, practitioners should treat the prejudice status as legally ambiguous from the public record alone.
Prejudice status unclearDefendant obtains dismissal — but exposure may not be permanent
The named defendant, cosmetics_store, exits this specific action without a merits ruling or injunction on the record. No finding of infringement was made. However, if the dismissal was without prejudice, the design patent USD1024350S remains enforceable and Solawave could initiate a new action. The absence of a consent judgment or settlement agreement in the public docket leaves the defendant’s long-term IP risk unresolved.
No merits ruling enteredSchedule A campaigns: volume tactics in design patent enforcement
The Schedule A structure — suing unnamed groups of e-commerce sellers identified later — is a well-established enforcement strategy in the N.D. Illinois, particularly for consumer goods brands targeting counterfeit or infringing marketplace listings. Early voluntary dismissals are a normal feature of these campaigns, often reflecting targeted settlements or compliance by individual defendants rather than indicating any weakness in the underlying design patent position.
Schedule A enforcement tacticFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Solawave Inc. | Company | Consumer skincare device brand — holder of design patent USD1024350SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Unnamed e-commerce sellers of skincare and light therapy products (Schedule A structure)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for Solawave Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Daniel Burnham | 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 counsel | Thomas Joseph Juettner | 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 Jeremy C. Daniel | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1) and names a single defendant — cosmetics_store — suggesting a targeted resolution within a broader Schedule A action. The phrasing ‘the above-captioned case may be terminated’ is procedurally standard and does not constitute a merits adjudication. No infringement finding, injunction, or damages award appears on the record. The silence on prejudice terms means the legal effect of this dismissal remains technically ambiguous under the default Rule 41 framework.
USD1024350S — ornamental design for a light therapy skincare device
USD1024350S (application no. US29/870678) is a U.S. design patent — identified by the ‘USD’ prefix — protecting the ornamental, non-functional appearance of a skincare device consistent with Solawave’s light therapy wand and face mask product lines. Design patents grant a 15-year term from grant and are infringed by any product whose overall appearance is substantially similar to the claimed design as perceived by an ordinary observer. The application number US29/870678 falls within the design patent series, and the products at issue span light therapy face masks, facial wands, and associated topical skincare accessories.
In the competitive light therapy skincare device market — where brands including Currentbody, Omnilux, and numerous white-label manufacturers compete on form factor as much as function — design patents represent a critical IP layer. A single design registration covering a commercially successful product silhouette can exclude a wide range of lookalike competitors sourced from the same ODM supply chain. For Solawave, USD1024350S appears to anchor its brand protection strategy in a product category experiencing rapid growth and heavy counterfeit penetration through e-commerce marketplaces.
Should you run an FTO against USD1024350S before launching a light therapy device?
Any company developing or distributing light therapy face masks, LED facial wands, or similar handheld skincare devices for the U.S. market should assess exposure against USD1024350S. This is especially relevant for brands sourcing hardware from Chinese ODMs — where the same physical mold may be sold to multiple buyers — and for Amazon or DTC sellers listing products with visual similarities to Solawave’s device line. Even minor aesthetic overlap can trigger an infringement claim under the ordinary observer test.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map the ornamental design claims of USD1024350S against your device’s visual profile, identify the scope of Solawave’s broader design patent portfolio, and surface any pending applications that could extend coverage. Eureka can also flag related Schedule A actions filed by the same plaintiff counsel — Greer, Burns & Crain — giving your team early warning of enforcement patterns before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1024350S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar light therapy device design patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Browse comparable Schedule A design patent enforcement actions involving LED skincare devices and beauty tech filed in the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the skincare device IP landscape
Solawave’s filing reflects a broader pattern of design patent enforcement against e-commerce channels in the beauty and light therapy device sector.
Design patents are a primary tool against skincare device counterfeits
Utility patents are difficult and slow to obtain for consumer aesthetics products. Design patents — like USD1024350S — offer faster grant timelines and are visually intuitive for enforcing against lookalike products sold on Amazon, Shopify storefronts, and Alibaba-sourced listings. Brands in the light therapy skincare space should audit their ornamental design portfolio as a first line of enforcement.
N.D. Illinois remains the preferred venue for Schedule A actions
The Northern District of Illinois consistently draws Schedule A filings due to its procedural familiarity with the format and its willingness to grant TROs against unknown defendants. IP teams tracking enforcement activity in the skincare and beauty tech sector should monitor this court’s docket as a leading indicator of brand protection trends.
Solawave v Partnerships — key questions answered
USD1024350S (application no. US29/870678) is a U.S. design patent asserted by Solawave Inc. covering the ornamental appearance of a light therapy face mask or facial wand skincare device. Design patents protect visual appearance rather than function and are enforceable against products that appear substantially similar to an ordinary observer.
Solawave filed a Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal naming defendant cosmetics_store. In Schedule A enforcement campaigns, early dismissals typically reflect targeted settlement, product delisting, or defendant compliance rather than any weakness in the plaintiff’s patent position. The underlying design patent remains valid and enforceable.
The public record does not specify. The Rule 41(a)(1) notice does not state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. Under the default rule, a first voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is presumed without prejudice unless the notice expressly states otherwise. Practitioners should treat the status as ambiguous based on public filings alone.
A Schedule A action is a patent or trademark lawsuit filed against a group of unnamed defendants — typically e-commerce sellers — whose identities are listed in a sealed or attached schedule. The Northern District of Illinois is a preferred venue for these actions due to its familiarity with the procedural format and its track record of granting TROs and asset freezes against marketplace sellers.
Solawave was represented by Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. of Chicago, a firm well known for filing high-volume Schedule A IP enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois. Counsel of record included Justin R. Gaudio and Amy Crout Ziegler, among others. Brands and sellers receiving demand letters from this firm in the skincare or consumer electronics space should assess settlement economics promptly.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.