Archive for February, 2013
Warning: Use of undefined constant archives - assumed 'archives' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in
/home/customer/www/greenpatentblog.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/cordobo-green-park-2/archive.php on line
32
Warning: Use of undefined constant page - assumed 'page' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in
/home/customer/www/greenpatentblog.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/cordobo-green-park-2/archive.php on line
32
Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in
/home/customer/www/greenpatentblog.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/cordobo-green-park-2/archive.php on line
32
class="post-6812 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-green-patents category-led-patents">
February 28th, 2013

Pluritas, a San Francisco IP advisory firm, is handling the sale of an LED patent portfolio developed and currently owned by a company called Illumitex.Â
According to the press release, Illumitex has shifted focus from LED design to lighting fixtures and total solutions and is therefore putting its chip patents up for sale.
The Pluritas Illumitex sale web page lists six U.S. patents, and the sale overview document says there are five patent families including foreign counterparts in Europe, China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea.Â
One provisional – Application Serial No. 61/587,552, entitled “Hybrid mirror for higher extraction efficiency from bottom-emitting LEDs – is listed as well (comprising the LED micro-mirror family), though it apparently expired in January. Because of the timing of patent application publication, it’s too early to tell whether the provisional has been converted to a formal utility application.
The first patent family relates to LED emitter layer shaping and includes U.S. Patent No. 7,829,358 and its related divisional, U.S. Patent No. 8,263,993, both entitled “System and method for emitter layer shaping” (Layer Shaping Patents).
The Layer Shaping Patents are directed to methods of shaping an emitter layer (80) of an LED to form a shaped portion (81) and an unshaped portion (82). In the shaped portion (81) the Gallium Nitride layer (810) and sidewalls (860) and (865) are shaped to a controlled height to maximize light extraction efficiency.
 
This allows photons of light from the quantum well region (815) that enter the Gallium Nitride layer (810) through interface (850) to exit through exit face (855) with minimal energy loss.
According to the sale overview document, these shaped emitters achieve the highest possible light extraction efficiencies by minimizing internal reflections and controlling beam shape.
Another family includes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,789,531 and 8,087,960 (‘960 Patent), both entitled “LED system and method” (LED Substrate Shaping Patents). The LED Substrate Shaping Patents are directed to methods of making LEDs in which a quantum well region (15) is shaped in conformance with the substrate (10).

More particularly, both the substrate (10) and the quantum well region (15) form sidewall (60), sidewall (65), or other sidewalls. Photons from the quantum well regions (15) may enter the substrate (10) through interface (50).
According to the ‘960 Patent, the size and shape of interface (50) and exit face (55), the distance between the two faces, and the shapes of the sidewalls (60, 65) can be optimized to direct light incident on the inner side of the sidewalls to exit face (55) to produce a desired light output profile.
U.S. Patent No. 8,115,217 (‘217 Patent) represents a family relating to LED packaging. Entitled “Systems and methods for packaging light-emitting diode devices,” the ‘217 Patent is directed to a packaged LED device (100) comprising a housing (130) with an LED chip (120) residing in an interior wall (135) of the housing (130). A phosphor plate (140) is positioned on top of the LED chip (120).

Submount (110) comprises a block of thermally conductive material having a top surface and a bottom surface. The submount (110) also includes cap layers (115) on the bottom surface, a metal layer (150) on the top surface, and embedded electrical connectors (160) connecting the cap layer (115) and the metal layer (150).
Finally, U.S. Patent No. 8,217,399, entitled “Photon tunneling light emitting diodes and methods” (‘399 Patent), represents the photon tunneling family. The ‘399 Patent is directed to an LED device comprising an LED layer structure (100) bonded to a submount (150).

The submount can include one or more electrodes (151) in contact with or connected to a p-metal layer (145) and one or more electrodes (152) connected to an n-metal contacts (160). The LED device has an n-Gallium Nitride layer (120), a p-Gallium Nitride layer (130), and a quantum well layer (140).
According to the sale overview document, a key feature of the ‘399 Patent invention is that the LED layer structure (100) has a thickness less than the wavelength of the light produced. The resulting photon tunneling prevents photons from becoming trapped in the substrate and therefore increases the amount of light emitted.
The sale overview document also features some cool analysis by our friends over at IP Checkups that shows where the Illumitex patents fit in the broader LED patent landscape.
: Use of undefined constant archives - assumed 'archives' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in
: Use of undefined constant page - assumed 'page' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in
class="post-6790 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-energy-efficiency category-green-patents category-ip-litigation category-led-patents">
 
There have been a number of green patent complaints filed recently in such technology areas as compact fluorescent lamps, LEDs, and battery chargers.
Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps
In the Matter of: Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps and Products and Components Containing Same
On January 28, 2013, Andrzej Bobel and Neptun Light (Complainants) filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) requesting an investigation of Maxlite, Technical Consumer Products, Satco Products, and Litetronics International (Respondents) for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,053,540 (‘540 Patent).
The ‘540 Patent is entitled “Energy efficient compact fluorescent reflector lamp” and directed to a reflector lamp which makes use of a fluorescent bulb, rather than an incandescent bulb, to improve the energy efficiency and service life of the bulb and allow for a wider array of color temperatures of emitted light. The disclosed lamp is “directly compatible with incandescent and halogen PAR lamps” and “used in the same type [of] light fixtures as incandescent” lamps.
Complainants allege that Respondents are engaged in the importation and sale of reflector compact fluorescent lights that infringe the ‘540 Patent. Complainants are seeking a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order regarding the importation and sale of the infringing products.
LEDs
Whelen Engineering Co., Inc. v. Able 2 Products Co.
On January 23, 2013, Whelen brought suit against Able in the District of Connecticut for the alleged infringement of its patent and corresponding trademark concerning an LED light display.
The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,641,284 (‘284 patent), is entitled “LED Light Assembly†and discloses a linear array of LEDs within a linear parabolic reflector that allows for the production of uniform, directional light beams.Â
Whelen also asserted U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,762,987 (listed in the complaint by its application number), for the mark LINEAR-LED, which, according to the complaint, is “used in connection with . . . warning lights and warning light systems.â€
Whelen argues that Able is infringing its patent and trademark through the sale of a number of its warning light products. Whelen seeks damages and destruction of the infringing products.
Last year Whelen sued another LED maker for infringement of the ‘284 Patent, a design patent, and a few of its trademarks.Â
Â
Cree, Inc. v. Cooper Lighting, LLC
Cree brought suit against Cooper Lighting (Cooper) on February 19, 2013 for the alleged infringement of two patents relating to an LED apparatus and fixture. The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,282,239, entitled “Light-directing apparatus with protected reflector-shield and lighting fixture utilizing same†(‘239 Patent) and 8,070,306, entitled “LED lighting fixture†(‘306 Patent). Ruud, a subsidiary of Cree, and Cooper are also in litigation surrounding the alleged infringement of a number of Ruud’s patents (see previous posts here and here).
Cree alleges that Cooper’s Ventus LED product infringes the ‘306 Patent and its AccuLED Optics system infringes the ‘239 patent. According to the complaint, Cooper also offers and sells a number of other infringing products under numerous brands. Cree is seeking a permanent injunction and damages.
Illumination Management Solutions, Inc. v. Ruud Lighting, Inc.
On February 13, 2013, Illumination Management Solutions (IMS) filed suit against Ruud Lighting (Ruud) in federal court in Tyler, Texas for alleged patent infringement and civil conspiracy.
The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 7,674, 018 entitled “LED device for wide beam generation.” This LED device produces light in a wide-angle profile which can be used for street lighting purposes.
IMS is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent further infringement, an award of compensatory, exemplary, and treble damages, attorney’s fees, and an order that Ruud “transfer to [IMS] any interest assigned to Ruud Lighting. . . .â€
Â
Battery Chargers
VoltStar Technologies, Inc. v. Superior Communications, Inc.
On February 1, 2013, VoltStar filed suit against Superior in the Eastern District of Texas for alleged patent infringement of three of its patents.
The complaint asserts three patents:  U.S. Patent Nos. 7,910,833 and 8,242,359, each entitled “Energy-saving power adapter/charger,” and 7,960,648, entitled “Energy saving cable assemblies.”
According to the complaint, the patents pertain to a battery charger “that automatically shuts off when a device is fully charged or not plugged in, eliminating ‘vampire load.’ This feature reduces power consumption and extends battery life.â€
VoltStar is seeking a permanent injunction as well as monetary damages for Superior’s alleged infringement.
*Cliff Brazil is a contributor to the Green Patent Blog. Cliff is currently in his second year at the University of Kansas School of Law in Lawrence, Kansas. He received his undergraduate degree in Metallurgical and Materials Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado.