Several new green patent complaints were filed in March and April in the area of LEDs.

LEDs

Aurora LED Technology, Inc. et al. v. Putco, Inc.

This lawsuit was filed March 27, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of Putco’s U.S. Patent No. 9,243,796 (‘796 Patent) and alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. D808,049 (‘049 Patent).

Aurora alleges that Putco’s Prolux Zero Space and F1 LED kit infringe the ‘049 Patent.

The ‘049 Patent is a design patent entitled “LED car light” and the ‘796 Patent is a utility patent entitled “LED lamp with a flexible heat sink.”

D3 LED, LLC v. Revolution Display, LLC et al.

D3 sued Revolution Display April 3, 2018, asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,948,450 (‘450 Patent).

The ‘450 Patent is entitled “Apparatus and method for allowing display modules to communicate information about themselves to other display modules in the same display panel” and directed to a module-based display panel.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the complaint alleges that defendants’ LED digital display module called the M8 Distribution Platform infringes the ‘450 Patent.

ETi Solid State Lighting, Inc. v. Costless Lighting, Inc.

In this patent infringement action, ETi asserts two patents relating to flush mount LED lighting products against Costless Lighting.

The complaint was filed March 26, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,500,352 and 9,541,270 both entitled “Integral LED light fixture” and directed to an integral LED light fixture for installation in an incandescent light bulb socket including a housing with a forwardly-extending portion and peripheral outer walls defining a recess, and a rearwardly-extending socket base to be screwed into an incandescent light bulb socket.

The accused products are the Costless Pull Chain LED Retrofit Remodel LED light fixtures.

Mag-LED, Inc. et al. v. Apogee Lighting Group, Inc. et al.

Filed March 8, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, this lawsuit (MAG-LED, Inc. et al v. Apogee Lighting Group, Inc. et al) involves LED flexible tape light products.

Mag-LED alleges that Apogee infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 9,671,075 and 9,746,144, each entitled “Light strip and method for making a light strip.”  The patents are directed to a light strip having a flexible enclosure extruded around a pair of conductors.  The enclosure contains a lighting assembly with one or more flexible substrates populated with a plurality of light circuits

The accused products are the Solara Flex System and other A/C powered LED flexible tape light products.

NEXT Lighting Corp. v. LSI Industries Inc.

NEXT sued LSI for alleged infringement of two patents relating to high brightness LED lighting units.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,491,165 (‘165 Patent) and 8,684,566 (‘566 Patent).

The ‘165 Patent is entitled “Lighting unit having lighting strips with light emitting elements and a remote luminescent material” and the ‘566 Patent is entitled “Lighting unit with indirect light source.”

Both patents are directed to a lighting unit having a support structure, and one or more light emitting elements supported by a circuit board contacting the support structure.  A remote luminescent material may be provided on one or more optical elements.  Light emitting elements configured to excite the luminescent material such as highly efficient light emitting diodes may be directed towards the luminescent material.

The complaint lists as an exemplary accused product LSI’s LED Side Light Recessed Troffer.

Nichia Corporation v. Vizio, Inc.

Nichia’s complaint was filed March 5, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,530,250, 9,490,411 and 9,537,071.

The patents are directed to an LED manufacturing method in which a resin part and a lead are formed in a substantially same plane in an outer side surface, including sandwiching a lead frame provided with a notch part, transfer-molding a thermosetting resin containing a light reflecting material in a mold to form a resin-molded body in the lead frame, and cutting the resin-molded body and the lead frame along the notch part.

The light emitting device has a resin package which provides an optical reflectivity equal to or more than 70% at a wavelength between 350 nm and 800 nm after thermal curing, and in which a resin part and a lead are formed in a substantially same plane in an outer side surface.

Nichia alleges that Vizio’s televisions incorporate LED devices that infringe the patents.

Seoul Semiconductor Co. et al. v. Service Lighting and Elec. Supplies, Inc.

On March 2, 2018, Seoul sued Service Lighting in federal court in Dallas, Texas, alleging infringement of ten LED and LED lighting patents.

The asserted patents are:

U.S. Patent No. 9,627,435, entitled “Light emitting device”

U.S. Patent No. 9,093,627, entitled “Light emitting diode and method of fabricating the same”

U.S. Patent No. 9,577,157, entitled “Light emitting diode chip having distributed Bragg reflector and method of fabricating the same”

U.S. Patent No. 7,700,960, entitled “Light emitting diode with ITO layer and method for fabricating the same”

U.S. Patent No. 8,168,988, entitled “Light emitting element with a plurality of cells bonded, method of manufacturing the same, and light emitting device using the same”

U.S. Patent No. 8,860,331, entitled “Light emitting device for AC power operation”

U.S. Patent No. 8,829,552, entitled “Light emitting device”

U.S. Patent No. 8,716,946, entitled “Light emitting device for AC power operation”

U.S. Patent No. 7,951,626, entitled “Light emitting device and method of manufacturing the same”

U.S. Patent No. 8,664,638, entitled “Light-emitting diode having an interlayer with high voltage density and method for manufacturing the same

The complaint lists the accused products as the Archipelago A19F6027-2 bulb.

Seoul Semiconductor Co. et al. v. Philcor R.V. & Electronic Leasing, Inc.

Seoul Semiconductor Co. et al. v. Archipelago Lighting, Inc.

The Philcor complaint was filed March 2, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, and the Archipelago complaint was filed on the same date in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  Both actions assert the following patents:

U.S. Patent No. 7,804,098, entitled “Light Emitting Element With a Plurality of Cells Bonded, Method of Manufacturing the Same, and Light Emitting Device Using the Same”

U.S. Patent No. 8,188,489, entitled “Light Emitting Diode for AC Operation”

U.S. Patent No. 7,646,031, entitled “Light Emitting Device having Light Emitting Elements”

U.S. Patent No. 8,901,575, entitled “AC Light Emitting Diode and Method For Fabricating the Same”

U.S. Patent No. 8,299,476, entitled “Light Emitting Diode Having Light Emitting Cell with Different Size and Light Emitting Device Thereof”

U.S. Patent No. 7,768,020, entitled “AC Light Emitting Diode”

U.S. Patent No. 8,084,774, entitled “Light Emitting Device Having Light Emitting Elements”

U.S. Patent No. 8,680,533, entitled “Light-Emitting Device Having Light-Emitting Elements with a Shared Electrode”

The accused products are the Archipelago LG16512C20027K3 and LA17C24024K1 bulbs.

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Aeon Labs, LLC

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Super Bright LEDs, Inc.

In these lawsuits, Technical LED accuses the defendants of infringing U.S. Patent No. RE41,685, entitled “Light source with non-white and phosphor-based white LED devices and LCD assembly” (‘685 Patent).

The’ 685 Patent is directed to a light source incorporating phosphor-based white and non-white LEDs, which may be raised off the floor of the optical cavity to permit light to be emitted from the base of the LED.  A reflective protrusion may be placed beneath the raised LED to aid in redirecting light forward, and the LEDs may be skewed in relation to adjacent LEDs to reduce interference.

The Aeon Labs complaint was filed March 26, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Super Bright LEDs complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on April 11, 2018.

The accused products are Aeon’s z-wave light bulbs and Super Bright’s MiLight bulbs.

Several new green patent complaints were filed in January and February, with one lawsuit relating to green fitness equipment, one relating to energy storage, and the rest involving LED technology.

Energy Storage

Eco-Stim Energy Solutions Inc. v. McIntyre et al.

This lawsuit was filed February 27, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Eco-Stim asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,679,668, entitled “Industrial apparatus for the large-scale storage of electric energy” and directed to an industrial apparatus for the large-scale storage of energy and a process for storing and transporting electric energy wherein an alkali metal, in particular sodium, and sulfur are provided in containers connected by means of an electrolyte E and represent a cell.

Green Fitness Equipment

Green Fitness Equipment Company, LLC v. Precor Inc. et al.

Green Fitness Equipment Company sued Precor February 7, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,884,553 (‘553 Patent).

The ‘553 Patent is entitled “Current monitor for indicating condition of attached electrical apparatus” and directed to a current monitor is described that indicates a condition of attached electrical equipment.

The current monitor can determine a predetermined range in which current being withdrawn by the attached electrical apparatus lies. Based on the determined range, corresponding display electronic elements, such as light emitting diodes (LEDs), can be activated.

LEDs

Unity Opto Technology Co., Ltd. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.

This lawsuit was filed January 12, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

Unity Opto Technology alleges that the Utilitech 2×2 LED Panel Light Model No. SL4K22 infringes four of its patents relating to flat panel LED technology:

U.S. Patent No. 9,423,113, entitled “Flat panel lighting device and driving circuitry”

U.S. Patent No. 9,335,036, entitled “Flat panel lighting device and driving circuitry”

U.S. Patent No. 9,523,487, entitled “Flat panel lighting device and driving circuitry”

U.S. Patent No. 9,447,954, entitled “Light fixture having a central wire-way”

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Schultze Imports, LLC

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Westwingx LLC

Both of these lawsuits assert U.S. Patent No. RE41,685, entitled “Light source with non-white and phosphor-based white LED devices and LCD assembly” (‘685 Patent).

The’ 685 Patent is directed to a light source incorporating phosphor-based white and non-white LEDs, which may be raised off the floor of the optical cavity to permit light to be emitted from the base of the LED.  A reflective protrusion may be placed beneath the raised LED to aid in redirecting light forward, and the LEDs may be skewed in relation to adjacent LEDs to reduce interference.

The accused products are Schultze’s Bluetooth Bulb and Gen 3 Triangle WiFi Bulb and Westwingx Flux Smart Lighting products.

Both actions were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, the complaint against Schultze (Technical LED IP v. Schultze Imports LLC) on February 6, 2018 and the complaint against Westwingx (Technical LED Intellectual Property LLC v. Westwingx LLC) February 23, 2018.

RetroLED Components, LLC v. Principal Light Group, LLC

RetroLED sued Principal Light Group (PLC) seeking a declaratory judgment that PLC’s U.S. Patent No. 9,311,835 (‘835 Patent) is invalid not infringed by RetroLED’s end cap products.

The’ 835 Patent is entitled “Lighting mount for interior-lighted signage and method of retrofitting a lighted sign” and directed to a lamp support assembly, retrofit kit, and method are provided for lighting a sign from an interior thereof.  The assembly can be used as a drop-in replacement for high-voltage gas-discharge tube lamps such as high-output fluorescent lamps, and may be used to retrofit signs originally built for gas-discharge tube lamps with low-voltage, high-efficiency lighting such as LED lighting.

The complaint was filed February 23, 2018 in federal court in Waco, Texas.

Philips Lighting North America Corp. et al. v. Howard Industries, Inc.

In a lawsuit filed January 23, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Philips asserted five patents related to LED drivers

the patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 7,262,559, entitled “LEDs driver”

U.S. Patent No. 6,577,512, entitled “Power supply for LEDs”

U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890, entitled “LED driver circuit with PWM output”

U.S. Patent No. 8,063,577, entitled “Method and a driver circuit for LED operation”

U.S. Patent No. 6,250,774, entitled “Luminaire”

The complaint lists the accused products as Howard’s High-bay Linear LED series lighting fixtures.

Nichia Corporation v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.

Nichia sued Feit Electric alleging infringement of three patents entitled “Light emitting device, resin package, resin-molded body, and methods for manufacturing light-emitting device, resin package and resin-molded body.”

Filed February 20, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the complaint lists the Feit 800 Lumen 3000K Dimmable LED and the Utilitech Pro 9-Watt G25 Warm White LED Light Bulb as accused products.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,530,250, 9,490,411 and 9,537,071.

The patents are directed to an LED manufacturing method in which a resin part and a lead are formed in a substantially same plane in an outer side surface, including sandwiching a lead frame provided with a notch part, transfer-molding a thermosetting resin containing a light reflecting material in a mold to form a resin-molded body in the lead frame, and cutting the resin-molded body and the lead frame along the notch part.

The light emitting device has a resin package which provides an optical reflectivity equal to or more than 70% at a wavelength between 350 nm and 800 nm after thermal curing, and in which a resin part and a lead are formed in a substantially same plane in an outer side surface.

Lemaire Illumincation Technologies, LLC v. HTC Corporation

This lawsuit was filed January 23, 2018 in federal court in Marshall, Texas.

The complaint asserts three patents:  U.S. Patent Nos. 6,095,661 (‘661 Patent), 6,488,390 (‘390 Patent) and 9,119,266 (‘266 Patent).

The ‘661 Patent is entitled “Method and apparatus for an L.E.D. flashlight” and the ‘390 Patent is entitled “Color-adjusted camera light and method” and these related patents are directed to an LED flashlight including  a control circuit for maintaining a predetermined light output level of the LED units as a charge on a battery varies.

The ‘266 Patent is entitled “Pulsed L.E.D. illumination apparatus and method” and directed to an illumination source for a camera including one or more LEDs and a control circuit for driving the LEDs with electrical pulses at a frequency high enough that light produced has an appearance to a human user of being continuous rather than pulsed.

The accused products are the HTC One M8 smartphone, the HTC One M9 smartphone, the HTC 10 smartphone, the HTC Desire Eye smartphone, and the HTC Ultra smartphone.

Several new green patent complaints were filed in September and October in the areas of advanced batteries, green cleaning solvents, and LED lighting.

Advanced Batteries

LG Chem, Ltd. et al. v. Amperex Technology Limited

LG Chem filed a lawsuit against Amperex asserting three patents relating to separator technology for advanced batteries.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on October 25, 2017 and lists U.S. Patent Nos. 7,662,517 (‘517 Patent), 7,638,241 (‘241 Patent) and 7,709,152 (‘152 Patent).

The ‘517 Patent is entitled “Organic/inorganic composite microporous membrane and electrochemical device prepared thereby” and directed to an organic/inorganic composite porous separator comprising (a) a polyolefin-based separator substrate; and (b) an active layer formed by coating at least one region selected from the group consisting of a surface of the substrate and a part of pores present in the substrate with a mixture of inorganic particles and a binder polymer.

Entitled “Organic/inorganic composite separator having morphology gradient, manufacturing method thereof and electrochemical device containing the same,” the ‘241 Patent is directed to an organic/inorganic composite separator including: a porous substrate having pores; and a porous active layer containing a mixture of inorganic particles and a binder polymer with which at least one surface of the porous substrate is coated.

The ‘152 Patent is entitled “Organic/inorganic composite separator having porous active coating layer and electrochemical device containing the same” and directed to an organic/inorganic composite separator including (a) a polyolefin porous substrate having pores; and (b) a porous active layer containing a mixture of inorganic particles and a binder polymer.

The accused products include ATL’s 844297, 425882, 346176, 494397 and A1445 battery cells.

Green Cleaning Solvents

GreenEarth Cleaning, LLC v. Benito Dry Cleaners LLC

This action for patent infringement, trademark infringement, and breach of contract was filed October 9, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Although the complaint lists nine patents, there is only one count of patent infringement asserting U.S. Patent No. 5,942,007 (‘007 Patent).

The ‘007 Patent is entitled “Dry cleaning method and solvent” and directed to dry cleaning methods comprising the steps of immersing clothes in a dry cleaning fluid including a cyclic siloxane composition, agitating the clothes in the composition, and then removing the cyclic siloxane composition by centrifugal action and air circulation.

According to the Abstract of the ‘007 Patent, the “cyclic-siloxane-based solvent allows the system to result in an environmentally friendly process which is, also, more effective in cleaning fabrics and the like than any known prior system.”

GreenEarth alleges that Benito breached its license agreement with GreenEarth.

LED Lighting

Seoul Semiconductor Co. et al. v. Archipelago Lighting, Inc.

On September 15, 2017, Seoul sued Archipelago in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging infringement of twelve LED and LED lighting patents.

The asserted patents are:

U.S. Patent No. 9,627,435, entitled “Light emitting device”

U.S. Patent No. 9,093,627, entitled “Light emitting diode and method of fabricating the same”

U.S. Patent No. 9,577,157, entitled “Light emitting diode chip having distributed Bragg reflector and method of fabricating the same”

U.S. Patent No. 7,700,960, entitled “Light emitting diode with ITO layer and method for fabricating the same”

U.S. Patent No. 8,168,988, entitled “Light emitting element with a plurality of cells bonded, method of manufacturing the same, and light emitting device using the same”

U.S. Patent No. 8,860,331, entitled “Light emitting device for AC power operation”

U.S. Patent No. 8,829,552, entitled “Light emitting device”

U.S. Patent No. 8,716,946, entitled “Light emitting device for AC power operation”

U.S. Patent No. 9,716,210, entitled “Light emitting diode and method of fabricating the same”

U.S. Patent No. 7,951,626, entitled “Light emitting device and method of manufacturing the same”

U.S. Patent No. 9,450,155, entitled “Light emitting device having wavelength converting layer”

U.S. Patent No. 8,664,638, entitled “Light-emitting diode having an interlayer with high voltage density and method for manufacturing the same

The complaint lists the accused products as Archipelago’s A19F6027-2 and LTCA12C32524K1 bulbs.

Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Polaris has asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,223,117 (‘117 Patent) against Samsung, alleging that several Galaxy mobile phones and tablets infringe the patent.

The ‘117 Patent is entitled “Method and apparatus to control display brightness with ambient light correction” and directed to an ambient light sensor which produces a current signal that varies linearly with the level of ambient light.

The current signal is multiplied by a user dimming preference to generate a brightness control signal that automatically compensates for ambient light variations in visual information display systems. The multiplying function provides noticeable user dimming control at relatively high ambient light levels.

The complaint was filed October 27, 2017 in federal court in Marshall, Texas.

Bluestone Innovations, LLC v. Osram Sylvania, Inc.

In this lawsuit, Bluestone alleges infringement of  U.S. Patent No. 6,163,557 (‘557 Patent).

The ‘557 Patent is entitled “Fabrication of group III-V nitrides on mesas” and directed to group III-V nitride films fabricated on mesas patterned either on substrates such as sapphire substrates or on group III-V nitride layers grown on substrates. The mesas provide reduced area surfaces for epitaxially growing group III-V nitride films to reduce thermal film stresses in the films to minimize cracking.

The complaint was filed October 17, 2017 in federal court in San Francisco and lists as accused products various brands and models of LED lightbulbs with epitaxial film.

Epistar Corporation v. All Star Lighting Supplies, Inc.

Epistar sued All Star in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on October 13, 2017.

The complaint asserts infringement of eight patents:

U.S. Patent No. 7,355,208, titled “Nitride-Based Semiconductor Element And Method Of Forming Nitride-Based Semiconductor”

U.S. Patent No. 7,489,068, titled “Light Emitting Device”

U.S. Patent No. 7,560,738, titled “Light-Emitting Diode Array Having An Adhesive Layer”

U.S. Patent No. 8,791,467, titled “Light Emitting Diode And Method Of Making The Same”

U.S. Patent No. 9,065,022, titled, “Light Emitting Apparatus”

U.S. Patent No. 9,257,604, titled “Light-Emitting Device Having A Patterned Surface”

U.S. Patent No. 9,488,321, titled “Illumination Device With Inclined Light Emitting Element Disposed On A Transparent Substrate” and

U.S. Patent No. 9,664,340, titled “Light Emitting Device”

The accused products are All Star’s LED filament bulbs.

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Feit Electrical Company, Inc.

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Makita U.S.A., Inc.

Blackbird Tech initiated two new lawsuits September 25 and 28, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The asserted patent in the Feit suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,114,834 (‘834 Patent).  Entitled “LED lighting apparatus,” the ‘834 Patent is directed to a light comprising a housing, a plurality of LED lights coupled in an array inside of the housing, and a reflective protrusion for reflecting light from the LED lights out of the housing.

The LED array receives a consistent flow of DC current that will not result in the LED lights burning out. To prevent the LED array from burning out there is also a current regulator for controlling a current flowing through this LED array.

Blackbird accuses Makita of infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,620,989, entitled “Rechargeable battery accessories” and directed to battery pack accessories including a battery power gauge adapted to be applied to a battery pack, a light adapted to the battery pack such that the battery pack can be used as a flashlight when needed, and a connector that can be used for charging the battery pack or to allow the battery pack to charge a device.