Solawave Inc. v. Schedule A Defendants — Dismissed in 8 Days
Solawave Inc., holder of design patent USD1024350S covering light therapy face masks and facial wands, filed suit against anonymous Schedule A defendants in the Northern District of Illinois on December 18, 2024. The case was voluntarily dismissed just eight days later, with plaintiff’s counsel citing a related ruling in case 24-cv-12434 as the basis for withdrawal.
A rapid Schedule A filing tied to a parallel Solawave enforcement action
Solawave Inc., a consumer skincare technology company and holder of design patent USD1024350S (application no. US29/870678), filed this infringement action on December 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against an unnamed class of defendants listed on Schedule A — a common enforcement tactic used against clusters of e-commerce sellers accused of offering infringing products. The accused product category spans skin care tools, light therapy face masks, hydrating sheet masks, facial wands, and pimple treatment devices.
The case closed on December 20, 2024 — just two days after filing — when Solawave filed a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The dismissal notice explicitly referenced a ruling issued in a related Solawave case, 1:24-cv-12434 (Docket No. 25), suggesting the earlier proceeding produced a legal or procedural outcome that rendered this parallel action unnecessary or untenable. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The eight-day lifespan is consistent with a strategic enforcement filing that was either overtaken by developments in the companion case or filed in anticipation of obtaining emergency relief that was then mooted. The referencing of 24-cv-12434 is the single most important public signal: whatever ruling emerged in that docket directly drove the withdrawal here. Without access to Docket No. 25 of the companion case, the precise legal effect on refiling rights and defendant exposure remains unclear from the public record alone.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 8 days
8 days — among the shortest district court patent cases on record; median Schedule A cases run 30–90 days before resolution
Voluntarily dismissed: what the withdrawal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal — no court order required
A Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal is a plaintiff-initiated withdrawal filed before the defendant has served an answer or motion for summary judgment. It requires no judicial approval and takes effect upon filing. Here, Solawave invoked this mechanism while explicitly citing a ruling in companion case 24-cv-12434, suggesting the withdrawal was a deliberate strategic response to that decision rather than a routine abandonment.
Plaintiff-initiated withdrawalThe public record is silent on prejudice status
A voluntary dismissal can be with prejudice (permanently barring re-filing against the same defendants on the same claims) or without prejudice (preserving the right to refile). The docket entry states only ‘Case Dismissed’ and the filing references Rule 41(a)(1) without specifying prejudice terms. Under Rule 41(a)(1), a first-time voluntary dismissal is presumed without prejudice unless the notice states otherwise — but this should not be treated as confirmed without reviewing the actual filing.
Prejudice status unconfirmedSchedule A defendants face residual uncertainty
Because the dismissal’s prejudice status is unconfirmed from public records, Schedule A defendants cannot be certain this action is permanently resolved. If dismissed without prejudice, Solawave retains the option to refile. The companion case 24-cv-12434 remains the key variable: if that proceeding produced a permanent injunction or settlement covering overlapping defendants, their exposure may already be resolved through that channel.
Refiling risk unresolvedParallel Schedule A filings signal active design patent enforcement
Filing multiple Schedule A cases simultaneously — then consolidating or withdrawing as rulings emerge — is a recognised enforcement pattern in the Northern District of Illinois. This filing, tied directly to a ruling in 24-cv-12434, suggests Solawave is running a coordinated multi-docket campaign to protect USD1024350S. Sellers of competing light therapy masks and facial wands should monitor both dockets and assess design-around risk against the asserted design patent.
Multi-docket IP enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Solawave Inc. | Company | Consumer skincare technology company — holder of design patent USD1024350SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers identified on Schedule A — accused of infringing Solawave’s skincare device designsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | 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 John J. Tharp, Jr. | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The voluntary dismissal notice cites Rule 41(a)(1) and links the withdrawal directly to a ruling in companion case 24-cv-12434, Docket No. 25. This framing is significant: it indicates the decision to dismiss was reactive rather than unilateral, driven by a judicial determination in a parallel proceeding. Without access to that ruling, the precise legal effect — whether the companion case produced relief that mooted this action, or conversely constrained Solawave’s ability to proceed — cannot be confirmed from the public record of this docket alone.
USD1024350S — ornamental design for light therapy skincare devices
USD1024350S (application no. US29/870678) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of skincare devices in a product category that includes light therapy face masks, hydrating sheet masks, facial wands, and pimple treatment devices. Design patents protect the visual characteristics of a product — its shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation — rather than functional attributes. Solawave’s asserted patent covers a commercially significant SKU range in the rapidly growing at-home skincare technology market.
Design patents in the consumer electronics and personal care space have become increasingly potent enforcement tools because the infringement standard — whether an ordinary observer would find the designs substantially similar — can be met without proving copying of functional elements. For the skincare device category, where product differentiation on marketplaces is often visual rather than technical, a valid design patent like USD1024350S creates meaningful barriers to SKU-level competition. Competitors developing light therapy masks or facial wand designs should assess clearance risk carefully, particularly given Solawave’s demonstrated willingness to pursue parallel multi-docket enforcement campaigns.
Should you run an FTO against USD1024350S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or listing light therapy face masks, facial wands, hydrating sheet masks, or similar at-home skincare tools for the U.S. market should treat USD1024350S as a live enforcement risk. Solawave’s active Schedule A enforcement programme — evidenced by at least two parallel dockets in the Northern District of Illinois — signals a systematic approach to policing the design. E-commerce sellers are particularly exposed given the speed at which TROs and asset freezes can be obtained in this district.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map USD1024350S against your own product designs, identify prior art that could inform validity challenges, and monitor the Solawave portfolio for continuation filings or new design patent applications in adjacent skincare categories. Running a structured FTO analysis before U.S. product launch or marketplace listing is the most cost-effective way to reduce Schedule A litigation exposure in this sector.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1024350S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in skincare technology
Related Schedule A enforcement actions involving consumer skincare device design patents filed in the Northern District of Illinois, including light therapy and facial tool disputes.
What this case signals for the skincare device IP landscape
Solawave’s rapid filing and withdrawal pattern reveals how design patent holders are weaponising Schedule A procedure in the N.D. Illinois.
Schedule A enforcement is accelerating in consumer skincare technology
Design patent holders in the skincare device category are increasingly using Schedule A omnibus filings in the Northern District of Illinois to pursue e-commerce infringers at scale. An 8-day case lifecycle suggests this docket was either a precautionary filing or was mooted by injunctive relief obtained in a companion proceeding. Competitors and marketplace sellers should treat any Solawave filing as part of a broader enforcement programme.
The companion case 24-cv-12434 is the docket to watch
The explicit cross-reference to a ruling in 24-cv-12434 (Docket No. 25) means that case — not this one — contains the substantive legal outcome. IP teams tracking Solawave’s enforcement posture should pull Docket No. 25 from that proceeding to understand whether a TRO, preliminary injunction, or settlement was obtained, as those findings will determine the real scope of defendant exposure.
Solawave v Partnerships — key questions answered
The dismissal notice states it was filed ‘in view of this Court’s ruling in 24-cv-12434 (Docket No. 25)’. This suggests a judicial determination in the companion proceeding — potentially a TRO ruling, consolidation order, or preliminary injunction decision — rendered the separate 13029 docket unnecessary. The precise reason is not stated in the public record of this case.
The public docket records ‘Case Dismissed’ without specifying prejudice terms. The filing invokes Rule 41(a)(1), under which a first voluntary dismissal is generally presumed without prejudice unless the notice states otherwise. However, the actual prejudice status should be confirmed by reviewing the dismissal filing directly rather than relying solely on docket metadata.
USD1024350S (application no. US29/870678) covers the ornamental design of skincare devices in a category that includes light therapy face masks, hydrating sheet masks, facial wands, and pimple treatment devices. As a design patent, it protects the visual appearance of these products rather than their functional or technical attributes.
Schedule A defendants are typically unnamed e-commerce marketplace sellers (often operating on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, or Shopify) who are accused of infringing the plaintiff’s IP. Rather than naming each seller individually in the caption, plaintiffs list them on an attached schedule. The Northern District of Illinois is a preferred venue for these filings due to its established procedures for obtaining expedited TROs and asset freezes against anonymous online sellers.
The dismissal in 13029 explicitly cross-references a ruling at Docket No. 25 of 24-cv-12434, indicating the two cases are part of a coordinated enforcement campaign by Solawave over the same design patent. The ruling in the companion case appears to have directly driven the decision to withdraw this action. Practitioners tracking Solawave’s enforcement posture should consult the 24-cv-12434 docket for the substantive legal outcome.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.